[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140430165014.GI11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:50:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 09:33:34AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *owner;
> > bool on_cpu = false;
>
> Wouldn't we want to initialize on_cpu = true. For the !owner case, I
> would expect that we want to spin for the lock.
>
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
> > if (owner)
> > on_cpu = owner->on_cpu;
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > return on_cpu;
> > }
That would indeed be in line with that the mutex code does. Indeed!
--
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