lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order
From
Date
On 16.12.2016 21:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:11:41PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>> mutex_optimistic_spin() already calls __mutex_trylock, and for the no-spin
>> case, __mutex_unlock_slowpath() only calls wake_up_q() after releasing the
>> wait_lock.
>
> mutex_optimistic_spin() is a no-op when !CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER

Does this change the conclusion in a meaningful way? I did mention the
no-spin case in the very part you quoted...

Again, AFAIU we're talking about the part of my proposal that turns what
is effectively

__mutex_trylock(lock, ...);
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);

(independent of whether the trylock succeeds or not!) into

spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
__mutex_trylock(lock, ...);

in an effort to streamline the code overall.

Also AFAIU, you're concerned that spin_lock_mutex(...) has to wait for
an unlock from mutex_unlock(), but when does that actually happen with
relevant probability?

When we spin optimistically, that could happen -- except that
__mutex_trylock is already called in mutex_optimistic_spin, so it
doesn't matter. When we don't spin -- whether due to .config or !first
-- then the chance of overlap with mutex_unlock is exceedingly small.

Even if we do overlap, we'll have to wait for mutex_unlock to release
the wait_lock anyway! So what good does acquiring the lock first really do?

Anyway, this is really more of an argument about whether there's really
a good reason to calling __mutex_trylock twice in that loop. I don't
think there is, your arguments certainly haven't been convincing, but
the issue can be side-stepped for this patch by keeping the trylock
calls as they are and just setting first = true unconditionally for
ww_ctx != NULL (but keep the logic for when to set the HANDOFF flag
as-is). Should probably rename the variable s/first/handoff/ then.

Nicolai

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-16 23:35    [W:0.093 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site