All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww_ctx handling
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:31:16 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210316153119.13802-2-longman@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210316153119.13802-1-longman@redhat.com>

The use_ww_ctx flag is passed to mutex_optimistic_spin(), but the
function doesn't use it. The frequent use of the (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
combination is repetitive.

In fact, ww_ctx should not be used at all if !use_ww_ctx.  Simplify
ww_mutex code by dropping use_ww_ctx from mutex_optimistic_spin() an
clear ww_ctx if !use_ww_ctx. In this way, we can replace (use_ww_ctx &&
ww_ctx) by just (ww_ctx).

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index adb935090768..622ebdfcd083 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
  */
 static __always_inline bool
 mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
-		      const bool use_ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
+		      struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
 	if (!waiter) {
 		/*
@@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
 #else
 static __always_inline bool
 mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
-		      const bool use_ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
+		      struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
 	return false;
 }
@@ -922,6 +922,9 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	struct ww_mutex *ww;
 	int ret;
 
+	if (!use_ww_ctx)
+		ww_ctx = NULL;
+
 	might_sleep();
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
@@ -929,7 +932,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 #endif
 
 	ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
-	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+	if (ww_ctx) {
 		if (unlikely(ww_ctx == READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)))
 			return -EALREADY;
 
@@ -946,10 +949,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
 
 	if (__mutex_trylock(lock) ||
-	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, NULL)) {
+	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, NULL)) {
 		/* got the lock, yay! */
 		lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
+		if (ww_ctx)
 			ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(ww, ww_ctx);
 		preempt_enable();
 		return 0;
@@ -960,7 +963,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	 * After waiting to acquire the wait_lock, try again.
 	 */
 	if (__mutex_trylock(lock)) {
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
+		if (ww_ctx)
 			__ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx);
 
 		goto skip_wait;
@@ -1013,7 +1016,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 			goto err;
 		}
 
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+		if (ww_ctx) {
 			ret = __ww_mutex_check_kill(lock, &waiter, ww_ctx);
 			if (ret)
 				goto err;
@@ -1026,7 +1029,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		 * ww_mutex needs to always recheck its position since its waiter
 		 * list is not FIFO ordered.
 		 */
-		if ((use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) || !first) {
+		if (ww_ctx || !first) {
 			first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
 			if (first)
 				__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
@@ -1039,7 +1042,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		 * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
 		 */
 		if (__mutex_trylock(lock) ||
-		    (first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, &waiter)))
+		    (first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, &waiter)))
 			break;
 
 		spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
@@ -1048,7 +1051,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 acquired:
 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 
-	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+	if (ww_ctx) {
 		/*
 		 * Wound-Wait; we stole the lock (!first_waiter), check the
 		 * waiters as anyone might want to wound us.
@@ -1068,7 +1071,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	/* got the lock - cleanup and rejoice! */
 	lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
 
-	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
+	if (ww_ctx)
 		ww_mutex_lock_acquired(ww, ww_ctx);
 
 	spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
-- 
2.18.1


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-16 15:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-16 15:31 [PATCH 0/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix locktorture ww_mutex test problems Waiman Long
2021-03-16 15:31 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2021-03-16 18:55   ` [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww_ctx handling Davidlohr Bueso
2021-03-17 12:38   ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
2021-03-17 12:59     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 13:43       ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 13:55         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 14:10           ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 14:17             ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 14:33             ` Waiman Long
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 2/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix acquire/release imbalance in ww_acquire_init()/ww_acquire_fini() Waiman Long
2021-03-17 12:38   ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock() like a trylock Waiman Long
2021-03-17  3:01   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-03-17 12:38   ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
2021-03-17 13:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 13:31       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 14:03         ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 15:35           ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 16:48             ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 17:40               ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 17:45                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 18:32                   ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 19:58                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 20:20                       ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 18:14                 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-18  2:24   ` [PATCH 3/4] " Boqun Feng
2021-03-18  2:54     ` Waiman Long
2021-03-18  6:36       ` Boqun Feng
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 4/4] locking/locktorture: Fix incorrect use of ww_acquire_ctx in ww_mutex test Waiman Long
2021-03-17  5:16   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-03-17 13:21     ` Waiman Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210316153119.13802-2-longman@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.