lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
I am sorry for being completely off-topic, but I've been wondering for the
long time...

What if we replace raw_spinlock_t.slock with "struct task_struct *owner" ?

void _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
{
struct task_struct *owner;

for (;;) {
preempt_disable();
if (likely(_raw_spin_trylock(lock)))
break;
preempt_enable();

while (!spin_can_lock(lock)) {
rcu_read_lock();
owner = lock->owner;
if (owner && current->prio < owner->prio &&
!test_tsk_thread_flag(owner, TIF_NEED_RESCHED))
set_tsk_thread_flag(owner, TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
rcu_read_unlock();
cpu_relax();
}
}

lock->owner = current;
}

void _spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
{
lock->owner = NULL;
_raw_spin_unlock(lock);
preempt_enable();
}

Now we don't need need_lockbreak(lock), need_resched() is enough, and we take
->prio into consideration.

Makes sense? Or stupid?

Oleg.

-
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: 2007-03-25 18:53    [W:0.077 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site