lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 03:19:43PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> The concern about picking up a handoff that we didn't request is real,
> though it cannot happen in the first iteration. Perhaps this __mutex_trylock
> can be moved to the end of the loop? See below...


> >>@@ -728,7 +800,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> >> * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
> >> */
> >> if ((first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, true)) ||
> >>- __mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> >>+ __mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
> >> break;
> >>
> >> spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>
> Change this code to:
>
> acquired = first &&
> mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx,
> &waiter);
> spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>
> if (acquired ||
> __mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
> break;

goto acquired;

will work lots better.

> }
>
> This changes the trylock to always be under the wait_lock, but we previously
> had that at the beginning of the loop anyway.

> It also removes back-to-back
> calls to __mutex_trylock when going through the loop;

Yeah, I had that explicitly. It allows taking the mutex when
mutex_unlock() is still holding the wait_lock.

> and for the first
> iteration, there is a __mutex_trylock under wait_lock already before adding
> ourselves to the wait list.

Correct.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-16 18:16    [W:0.432 / U:2.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site