[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389917300.3138.12.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:08:20 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
"Figo.zhang" <figo1802@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v7 2/6] MCS Lock: optimizations and extra comments
Remove unnecessary operation and make the cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node
check in mcs_spin_unlock() likely() as it is likely that a race did not occur
most of the time.
Also add in more comments describing how the local node is used in MCS locks.
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
---
include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h b/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
index b5de3b0..96f14299 100644
--- a/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/mcs_spinlock.h
@@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ struct mcs_spinlock {
};
/*
+ * In order to acquire the lock, the caller should declare a local node and
+ * pass a reference of the node to this function in addition to the lock.
+ * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
+ * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked
+ * in mcs_spin_unlock().
+ *
* We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
* time spent in this lock function.
*/
@@ -33,7 +39,6 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
prev = xchg(lock, node);
if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
/* Lock acquired */
- node->locked = 1;
return;
}
ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
@@ -43,6 +48,10 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
}
+/*
+ * Releases the lock. The caller should pass in the corresponding node that
+ * was used to acquire the lock.
+ */
static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
{
struct mcs_spinlock *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
@@ -51,7 +60,7 @@ static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *nod
/*
* Release the lock by setting it to NULL
*/
- if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node)
+ if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
return;
/* Wait until the next pointer is set */
while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
--
1.7.11.7
--
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