lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 05/19] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS

* Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:

> On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >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.
> >
>
> Sorry, will fix the comments.

I suggest not renaming the function instead.
try_clear_pending_set_locked() tells the intent in a clearer fashion.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-18 10:21    [W:0.249 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site