[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1401913714.13877.11.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:28:34 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
peter@...leysoftware.com, riel@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
walken@...gle.com, Waiman.Long@...com, aswin@...com,
scott.norton@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Optimize mutex trylock slowpath
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> In __mutex_trylock_slowpath(), we acquire the wait_lock spinlock,
> xchg() lock->count with -1, then set lock->count back to 0 if there
> are no waiters, and return true if the prev lock count was 1.
>
> However, if we the mutex is already locked, then there may not be
^^ leave that out.
> much point in attempting the above operations.
Isn't this redundant? I mean, if we enter the slowpath its because
__mutex_fastpath_trylock() already failed so we already know that the
lock is taken.
What kind of testing has this change been put through? Any advantages?
(ie: how many cycles are we saving here?), the trylock mechanism is
already pretty darn fast.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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