[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1471376683.17361.23.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:44:43 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: jason.low2@....com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, imre.deak@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, terry.rudd@....com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning
is enabled
On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 11:40 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/10/2016 02:44 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> > +static inline void do_yield_to_waiter(struct mutex *lock, int *wakeups)
> > +{
> > + return;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void clear_yield_to_waiter(struct mutex *lock)
> > +{
> > + return;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool need_yield_to_waiter(struct mutex *lock)
> > +{
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > #else
> > static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
> > struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
> > {
> > return false;
> > }
> > +
> > +#define MUTEX_WAKEUP_THRESHOLD 16
> > +
> > +static inline void do_yield_to_waiter(struct mutex *lock, int *wakeups)
> > +{
> > + *wakeups += 1;
> > +
> > + if (*wakeups< MUTEX_WAKEUP_THRESHOLD)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (lock->yield_to_waiter != true)
> > + lock->yield_to_waiter = true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void clear_yield_to_waiter(struct mutex *lock)
> > +{
> > + lock->yield_to_waiter = false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool need_yield_to_waiter(struct mutex *lock)
> > +{
> > + return lock->yield_to_waiter;
> > +}
> > #endif
> >
> > _
>
> The *yield* helper functions should be in a separate conditional
> compilation block as the declaration of yield_to_waiter may not match
> the helper functions with certain combination of config variables.
>
> Something like
>
> #if !defined(CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> ...
> #else
> ...
> #endif
Right, we will need to incorporate the CONFIG_SMP logic when defining
these functions here, otherwise they would be undefined in the !SMP
case.
Thanks,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists