forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
locking/mutexes: Delete the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER macro
MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER() is a macro which checks for if there are "no waiters" on a mutex by checking if the lock count is non-negative. Based on feedback from the discussion in the earlier version of this patchset, the macro is not very readable. Furthermore, checking lock->count isn't always the correct way to determine if there are "no waiters" on a mutex. For example, a negative count on a mutex really only means that there "potentially" are waiters. Likewise, there can be waiters on the mutex even if the count is non-negative. Thus, "MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER" doesn't always do what the name of the macro suggests. So this patch deletes the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITERS() macro, directly use atomic_read() instead of the macro, and adds comments which elaborate on how the extra atomic_read() checks can help reduce unnecessary xchg() operations. Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> Acked-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: davidlohr@hp.com Cc: scott.norton@hp.com Cc: aswin@hp.com Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1402511843-4721-3-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
0c3c0f0d6e
commit
1e820c9608
@ -46,12 +46,6 @@
|
||||
# include <asm/mutex.h>
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* A negative mutex count indicates that waiters are sleeping waiting for the
|
||||
* mutex.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
#define MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(mutex) (atomic_read(&(mutex)->count) >= 0)
|
||||
|
||||
void
|
||||
__mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
|
||||
{
|
||||
@ -483,8 +477,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
|
||||
|
||||
/* once more, can we acquire the lock? */
|
||||
if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1))
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Once more, try to acquire the lock. Only try-lock the mutex if
|
||||
* lock->count >= 0 to reduce unnecessary xchg operations.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (atomic_read(&lock->count) >= 0 && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1))
|
||||
goto skip_wait;
|
||||
|
||||
debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
|
||||
@ -504,9 +501,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
|
||||
* it's unlocked. Later on, if we sleep, this is the
|
||||
* operation that gives us the lock. We xchg it to -1, so
|
||||
* that when we release the lock, we properly wake up the
|
||||
* other waiters:
|
||||
* other waiters. We only attempt the xchg if the count is
|
||||
* non-negative in order to avoid unnecessary xchg operations:
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) &&
|
||||
if (atomic_read(&lock->count) >= 0 &&
|
||||
(atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
|
||||
break;
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user