Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:53:22 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/mutex: Add waiter parameter to mutex_optimistic_spin() |
| |
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:22:14PM -0800, Jason Low wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 18:15 -0800, Jason Low wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 14:14 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > > >> static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, > > > >> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, > > > >> + const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter) > > > >> { > > > >> struct task_struct *task = current; > > > >> + bool acquired = false; > > > >> > > > >> + if (!waiter) { > > > >> + if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock)) > > > >> + goto done; > > > > > > > >Why doesn't the waiter have to check mutex_can_spin_on_owner() ? > > > > > > afaict because mutex_can_spin_on_owner() fails immediately when the counter > > > is -1, which is a nono for the waiters case. > > > > mutex_can_spin_on_owner() returns false if the task needs to reschedule > > or if the lock owner is not on_cpu. In either case, the task will end up > > not spinning when it enters the spin loop. So it makes sense if the > > waiter also checks mutex_can_spin_on_owner() so that the optimistic spin > > queue overhead can be avoided in those cases. > > Actually, since waiters bypass the optimistic spin queue, that means the > the mutex_can_spin_on_owner() isn't really beneficial. So Waiman is > right in that it's fine to skip this in the waiter case.
My concern was the 'pointless' divergence between the code-paths. The less they diverge the easier it is to understand and review.
If it doesn't hurt, please keep it the same. If it does need to diverge, include a comment on why.
| |