[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1391497992.2774.17.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:13:12 -0800
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/5] mutex: Give spinners a chance to
spin_on_owner if need_resched() triggered while queued
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 20:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +void m_spin_unlock(struct m_spinlock **lock)
> +{
> + struct m_spinlock *node = this_cpu_ptr(&m_node);
> + struct m_spinlock *next;
> +
> + if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
> + return;
At this current point, (node->next != NULL) is a likely scenario.
Perhaps we can also add the following code here:
next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
if (next) {
ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
return;
}
> + next = m_spin_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
> + if (next)
> + ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 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