[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1402601825.2627.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:37:05 -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,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Waiman.Long@...com, scott.norton@...com,
aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mutex: Try to acquire mutex only if it is
unlocked
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 11:37 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> Upon entering the slowpath in __mutex_lock_common(), we try once more to
> acquire the mutex. We only try to acquire if (lock->count >= 0). However,
> what we actually want here is to try to acquire if the mutex is unlocked
> (lock->count == 1).
>
> This patch changes it so that we only try-acquire the mutex upon entering
> the slowpath if it is unlocked, rather than if the lock count is non-negative.
> This helps further reduce unnecessary atomic xchg() operations.
>
> Furthermore, this patch uses !mutex_is_locked(lock) to do the initial
> checks for if the lock is free rather than directly calling atomic_read()
> on the lock->count, in order to improve readability.
I think this patch can be merged in 2/4, like you had in v1. Otherwise
looks good.
--
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