[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160212221444.GC16417@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:14:44 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/mutex: Add waiter parameter to
mutex_optimistic_spin()
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
>> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
>> + const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter)
>> {
>> struct task_struct *task = current;
>> + bool acquired = false;
>>
>> + if (!waiter) {
>> + if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
>> + goto done;
>
>Why doesn't the waiter have to check mutex_can_spin_on_owner() ?
afaict because mutex_can_spin_on_owner() fails immediately when the counter
is -1, which is a nono for the waiters case.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists