lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup
Date
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 21:40 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if
> > we know beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. This comes
> > at the smaller cost of doing some atomic operations to keep track of
> > the list's size. Specifically, increment the counter when an element is
> > added to the list, and decrement when it is removed. Of course, if the
> > counter is 0, then there are no tasks blocked on a futex. Some special
> > considerations:
> >
> > - increment the counter at queue_lock() as we always end up calling
> > queue_me() which adds the element to the list. Upon any error,
> > queue_unlock() is called for housekeeping, for which we decrement
> > to mach the increment done in queue_lock().
> >
> > - decrement the counter at __unqueue_me() to reflect when an element is
> > removed from the queue for wakeup related purposes.
>
> What is the problem you are trying to solve here?

Apologies, too quick on the trigger. I see plenty of detail in 0/5. Will
spend some time reviewing that.

--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-23 07:01    [W:0.113 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site