| Date | Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:58:44 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 05/19] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS |
| |
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > +static __always_inline void > +clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) > +{ > + struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock; > + > + ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1; > +}
> @@ -157,8 +251,13 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval) > * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away. > * > * *,1,1 -> *,1,0 > + * > + * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the > + * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock > + * sequentiality; this because not all try_clear_pending_set_locked() > + * implementations imply full barriers.
You renamed the function referred in the above comment.
> */ > - while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK) > + while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter)) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK) > arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > > /*
|