[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160213121052.GB6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:10:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
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, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:14:44PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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.
Can't see it do that, also, if it were to do that, we'd not be here
since having a waiter would then mean no spinners and no starvation
etc..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists