[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287070392.8344.15.camel@thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:33:12 +0200
From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mutex: Introduce mutex_cpu_relax()
From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
The spinning mutex implementation uses cpu_relax() in busy loops as a
compiler barrier. Depending on the architecture, cpu_relax() may do more
than needed in this specific mutex spin loops. On System z we also give
up the time slice of the virtual cpu in cpu_relax(), which prevents
effective spinning on the mutex.
This patch replaces cpu_relax() in the spinning mutex code with a new
function mutex_cpu_relax(), which can be defined by each architecture
that selects HAVE_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX. The default is still cpu_relax(), so
this patch should not affect other architectures than System z for now.
Signed-off-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
---
arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/s390/include/asm/mutex.h | 2 ++
include/linux/mutex.h | 4 ++++
kernel/mutex.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/s390/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig
@@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ config S390
select HAVE_KERNEL_BZIP2
select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
+ select HAVE_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX
select ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_TRYLOCK
select ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_TRYLOCK_BH
select ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_LOCK
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mutex.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mutex.h
@@ -7,3 +7,5 @@
*/
#include <asm-generic/mutex-dec.h>
+
+#define mutex_cpu_relax() barrier()
--- a/include/linux/mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
@@ -160,4 +160,8 @@ extern int mutex_trylock(struct mutex *l
extern void mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock);
extern int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock);
+#ifndef HAVE_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX
+#define mutex_cpu_relax() cpu_relax()
+#endif
+
#endif
--- a/kernel/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
* memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
* values at the cost of a few extra spins.
*/
- cpu_relax();
+ mutex_cpu_relax();
}
#endif
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3888,7 +3888,7 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lo
if (task_thread_info(rq->curr) != owner || need_resched())
return 0;
- cpu_relax();
+ mutex_cpu_relax();
}
return 1;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists