lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] mutex: Delete the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER macro

On 6/11/2014 2:37 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> v1->v2:
> - There were discussions in v1 about a possible mutex_has_waiters()
> function. This patch didn't use that function because the places which
> used MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER requires checking for lock->count while an
> actual mutex_has_waiters() should check for !list_empty(wait_list).
> We'll just delete the macro and directly use atomic_read() + comments.
>
> MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER() is a macro which checks for if there are
> "no waiters" on a mutex by checking if the lock count is non-negative.
> Based on feedback from the discussion in the earlier version of this
> patchset, the macro is not very readable.
>
> Furthermore, checking lock->count isn't always the correct way to
> determine if there are "no waiters" on a mutex. For example, a negative
> count on a mutex really only means that there "potentially" are
> waiters. Likewise, there can be waiters on the mutex even if the count is
> non-negative. Thus, "MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER" doesn't always do what the name
> of the macro suggests.
>
> So this patch deletes the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITERS() macro, directly
> use atomic_read() instead of the macro, and adds comments which
> elaborate on how the extra atomic_read() checks can help reduce
> unnecessary xchg() operations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index dd26bf6..4bd9546 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -46,12 +46,6 @@
> # include <asm/mutex.h>
> #endif
>
> -/*
> - * A negative mutex count indicates that waiters are sleeping waiting for the
> - * mutex.
> - */
> -#define MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(mutex) (atomic_read(&(mutex)->count) >= 0)
> -
> void
> __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
> {
> @@ -483,8 +477,11 @@ slowpath:
> #endif
> spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>
> - /* once more, can we acquire the lock? */
> - if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1))
> + /*
> + * Once more, try to acquire the lock. Only try-lock the mutex if
> + * lock->count >= 0 to reduce unnecessary xchg operations.
> + */
> + if (atomic_read(&lock->count) >= 0 && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1))
> goto skip_wait;
>
> debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
> @@ -504,9 +501,10 @@ slowpath:
> * it's unlocked. Later on, if we sleep, this is the
> * operation that gives us the lock. We xchg it to -1, so
> * that when we release the lock, we properly wake up the
> - * other waiters:
> + * other waiters. We only attempt the xchg if the count is
> + * non-negative in order to avoid unnecessary xchg operations:
> */
> - if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) &&
> + if (atomic_read(&lock->count) >= 0 &&
> (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
> break;
>

Acked-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-12 04:01    [W:0.137 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site