[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160520150049.GB7086@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:00:49 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: manfred@...orfullife.com, Waiman.Long@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ggherdovich@...e.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:39:26PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> In addition, this makes me wonder if queued_spin_is_locked() should then be:
>>
>> - return atomic_read(&lock->val);
>> + return atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK;
>>
>> And avoid considering pending waiters as locked.
>
>Probably
Similarly, and I know you hate it, but afaict, then semantically
queued_spin_is_contended() ought to be:
- return atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK;
+ return atomic_read(&lock->val);
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists