lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 05/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, mutex-core.patch
From
Date
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 02:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> +static inline int
> +__mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> + struct thread_info *ti, struct task_struct *task,
> + unsigned long *flags, unsigned long task_state
> __IP_DECL__)
> +{
> + unsigned int old_val;
> +
> + debug_lock_irqsave(&debug_lock, *flags, ti);
> + DEBUG_WARN_ON(lock->magic != lock);
> +

How expensive is the xchg? Since __mutex_lock_common is called even
when it's going to wake up. Maybe it might be more efficient to add
something like:

if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) {
debug_set_owner(lock, ti __IP__);
debug_unlock_irqrestore(&debug_lock, *flags, ti);
return 1;
}

This way we save the overhead of grabbing another spinlock, adding the
task to the wait_list and changing it's state.


> + spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> + __add_waiter(lock, waiter, ti, task __IP__);
> + set_task_state(task, task_state);
> +
> + /*
> + * Lets try to take the lock again - this is needed even if
> + * we get here for the first time (shortly after failing to
> + * acquire the lock), to make sure that we get a wakeup once
> + * it's unlocked. Later on this is the operation that gives
> + * us the lock. We need to xchg it to -1, so that when we
> + * release the lock, we properly wake up other waiters!
> + */
> + old_val = atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1);
> +
> + if (old_val == 1) {

-- Steve


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-19 06:05    [W:0.112 / U:1.392 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site