From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754353AbcBPIxd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:53:33 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:58169 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752195AbcBPIxc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:53:32 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:53:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/mutex: Add waiter parameter to
 mutex_optimistic_spin()
Message-ID: <20160216085322.GS6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1455298335-53229-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <1455298335-53229-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <20160212202355.GY6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160212221444.GC16417@linux-uzut.site>
 <1455588930.2276.36.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <1455589334.2276.39.camel@j-VirtualBox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1455589334.2276.39.camel@j-VirtualBox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:22:14PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 18:15 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 14:14 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > >>  static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
> > > >> +				  struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
> > > >> +				  const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter)
> > > >>  {
> > > >>  	struct task_struct *task = current;
> > > >> +	bool acquired = false;
> > > >>
> > > >> +	if (!waiter) {
> > > >> +		if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
> > > >> +			goto done;
> > > >
> > > >Why doesn't the waiter have to check mutex_can_spin_on_owner() ?
> > > 
> > > afaict because mutex_can_spin_on_owner() fails immediately when the counter
> > > is -1, which is a nono for the waiters case.
> > 
> > mutex_can_spin_on_owner() returns false if the task needs to reschedule
> > or if the lock owner is not on_cpu. In either case, the task will end up
> > not spinning when it enters the spin loop. So it makes sense if the
> > waiter also checks mutex_can_spin_on_owner() so that the optimistic spin
> > queue overhead can be avoided in those cases.
> 
> Actually, since waiters bypass the optimistic spin queue, that means the
> the mutex_can_spin_on_owner() isn't really beneficial. So Waiman is
> right in that it's fine to skip this in the waiter case.

My concern was the 'pointless' divergence between the code-paths. The
less they diverge the easier it is to understand and review.

If it doesn't hurt, please keep it the same. If it does need to diverge,
include a comment on why.