Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:46:16 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |