lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/mutex: Add waiter parameter to mutex_optimistic_spin()
On 02/16/2016 03:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:22:14PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 18:15 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 14:14 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>>> static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
>>>>>> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
>>>>>> + const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct task_struct *task = current;
>>>>>> + bool acquired = false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (!waiter) {
>>>>>> + if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
>>>>>> + goto done;
>>>>> Why doesn't the waiter have to check mutex_can_spin_on_owner() ?
>>>> afaict because mutex_can_spin_on_owner() fails immediately when the counter
>>>> is -1, which is a nono for the waiters case.
>>> mutex_can_spin_on_owner() returns false if the task needs to reschedule
>>> or if the lock owner is not on_cpu. In either case, the task will end up
>>> not spinning when it enters the spin loop. So it makes sense if the
>>> waiter also checks mutex_can_spin_on_owner() so that the optimistic spin
>>> queue overhead can be avoided in those cases.
>> Actually, since waiters bypass the optimistic spin queue, that means the
>> the mutex_can_spin_on_owner() isn't really beneficial. So Waiman is
>> right in that it's fine to skip this in the waiter case.
> My concern was the 'pointless' divergence between the code-paths. The
> less they diverge the easier it is to understand and review.
>
> If it doesn't hurt, please keep it the same. If it does need to diverge,
> include a comment on why.

I will keep the preemption, but will still leave out the
mutex_can_spin_on_owner() check for waiter. I will add a comment to
document that.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-17 03:21    [W:0.053 / U:1.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site