[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140128202042.GN9012@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:20:42 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, Waiman.Long@...com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false
if task need_resched()
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:13:12AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
> task needs to be rescheduled to avoid entering the MCS queue when it
> needs to reschedule.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
But I cannot help asking how this affects performance. (My guess is
"not much", but always good to know.)
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 3 +++
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 4dd6e4c..85c6be1 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -212,6 +212,9 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
> struct task_struct *owner;
> int retval = 1;
>
> + if (need_resched())
> + return 0;
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
> owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> if (owner)
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
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