Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 10/16/19 12:29 AM, Alex Kogan wrote:
> +static inline void cna_pass_lock(struct mcs_spinlock *node,
> +				 struct mcs_spinlock *next)
> +{
> +	struct cna_node *cn = (struct cna_node *)node;
> +	struct mcs_spinlock *next_holder = next, *tail_2nd;
> +	u32 val = 1;
> +
> +	u32 scan = cn->pre_scan_result;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * check if a successor from the same numa node has not been found in
> +	 * pre-scan, and if so, try to find it in post-scan starting from the
> +	 * node where pre-scan stopped (stored in @pre_scan_result)
> +	 */
> +	if (scan > 0)
> +		scan = cna_scan_main_queue(node, decode_tail(scan));
> +
> +	if (!scan) { /* if found a successor from the same numa node */
> +		next_holder = node->next;
> +		/*
> +		 * make sure @val gets 1 if current holder's @locked is 0 as
> +		 * we have to store a non-zero value in successor's @locked
> +		 * to pass the lock
> +		 */
> +		val = node->locked + (node->locked == 0);

node->locked can be 0 when the cpu enters into an empty MCS queue. We
could unconditionally set node->locked to 1 for this case in qspinlock.c
or with your above code. Perhaps, a comment about when node->locked will
be 0.

It may be easier to understand if you just do

    val = node->locked ? node->locked : 1;

Cheers,
Longman

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel