lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks
On 05/20/2016 08:59 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> >Similarly, and I know you hate it, but afaict, then semantically
>>> >queued_spin_is_contended() ought to be:
>>> >
>>> >- return atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK;
>>> >+ return atomic_read(&lock->val);
>>> >
>>
>>> Looking for contended lock, you need to consider the lock waiters
>>> also. So
>>> looking at the whole word is right.
>>
>> No, you _only_ need to look at the lock waiters.
>
> Is there anyway to do this in a single atomic_read? My thought is that
> otherwise
> we could further expand the race window of when the lock is and isn't
> contended (as returned to by the user). Ie avoiding crap like:
>
> atomic_read(&lock->val) && atomic_read(&lock->val) != _Q_LOCKED_VAL
>
> In any case, falsely returning for the 'locked, uncontended' case, vs
> completely
> ignoring waiters is probably the lesser evil :).
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr

The existing code is doing that, but I would argue that including the
locked, but uncontended case isn't a bad idea.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-21 06:41    [W:0.060 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site