From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read/up_write
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:19:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5538024B.9040109@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1429561424.8820.24.camel@j-VirtualBox>
On 04/20/2015 04:23 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 22:03 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/osq_lock.h b/include/linux/osq_lock.h
>> index 3a6490e..703ea5c 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/osq_lock.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/osq_lock.h
>> @@ -32,4 +32,9 @@ static inline void osq_lock_init(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>> extern bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock);
>> extern void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock);
>>
>> +static inline bool osq_is_locked(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>> +{
>> + return atomic_read(&lock->tail) != OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL;
>> +}
> Would it be better to separate the addition of osq_is_locked() into its
> own patch, since this can be useful for other situations and isn't just
> specific to the rwsem optimization.
>
I think the osq_lock.h change is too simple and straight forward to
warrant a separate patch.
Cheers,
Longman
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-22 20:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-18 2:03 [PATCH] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read/up_write Waiman Long
2015-04-18 15:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-23 18:41 ` Waiman Long
2015-04-20 20:23 ` Jason Low
2015-04-22 20:19 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=5538024B.9040109@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
/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.