[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160824165244.GE10168@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:52:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/mutex: Rework mutex::owner
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 05:34:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:56:59AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > + owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
> > > + for (;;) {
> > > + unsigned long old;
> > > +
> > > + old = atomic_long_cmpxchg_release(&lock->owner, owner, owner & 0x03);
> > > + if (old == owner)
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > + owner = old;
> > > + }
> >
> > Can you rewrite this using atomic_long_fetch_and_release?
>
> Yes, until patch 3/3.. but now that you mention it I think we can do:
>
> owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
> if (!(owner & MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF))
> (void)atomic_long_fetch_and_release(MUTEX_FLAGS, &lock->owner);
>
And of course, x86 would very much like atomic_long_and_release() here,
such that it can do LOCK ADD instead of a LOCK CMPXCHG loop. But of
course, we don't have that ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists