Re: [PATCH -v9][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 17:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:16 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > Change mutex contention behaviour such that it will sometimes busy wait on
> > > acquisition - moving its behaviour closer to that of spinlocks.
> > 
> > Okey, dokey. Looks reasonable, but I wonder if this part came from v8 and 
> > wasn't intentional:
> > 
> > > +		if (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1) {
> > > +			lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
> > > +			mutex_set_owner(lock);
> > > +			preempt_enable();
> > > +			return 0;
> > > +		}
> > 
> > Now you're forcing the slow-path on unlock. Maybe it was intentional, 
> > maybe it wasn't. Did you perhaps mean
> > 
> > 	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1) {
> > 
> > here? I thought we agreed it was safe, if only because it should be 
> > equivalent to just having done "mutex_trylock()" instead of a "real" lock 
> > sequence.
> 
> Yes, that was an 'accident' from -v8, yes we did think the cmpxchg was
> good, however I did get some spurious lockups on -v7, and I only noticed
> the thing after I'd done most of the testing, so I decided to let it be
> for now.
> 
> Let me put the cmpxchg back in and see if this is all still good (only
> 3*2*2 configs to test :-).

Ok, tested only 1, but that was the one I remember lockups from -- and
that seems to be good with the cmpxchg.

Do you fancy me sending v10 or will you make that change locally?