From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
jason.low2@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locking/rwsem: Avoid double checking before try acquiring write lock
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:47:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1410972450.2447.25.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1410946476.9389.32.camel@linux-t7sj.site>
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 11:34 +0200, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 17:16 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > Commit 9b0fc9c09f1b checks for if there are known active lockers
> > in order to avoid write trylocking using expensive cmpxchg() when
> > it likely wouldn't get the lock.
>
> Ah, I remember you had this one in your queue for some time :)
>
> > However, a subsequent patch was added such that we directly
> > check for sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS right before trying
> > that cmpxchg(). Thus, commit 9b0fc9c09f1b now just adds overhead.
> > This patch modifies it so that we only do a check for if
> > count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS.
> >
> > Also, add a comment on why we do an "extra check" of count
> > before the cmpxchg().
>
> heh, so people don't try to remove the "redundant" check!
Right, I've already seen at least 1 such patch :)
> > Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
> > Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>
> Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-17 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-17 0:16 [PATCH v3] locking/rwsem: Avoid double checking before try acquiring write lock Jason Low
2014-09-17 9:34 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-09-17 16:47 ` Jason Low [this message]
2014-10-03 5:29 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Jason Low
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=1410972450.2447.25.camel@j-VirtualBox \
--to=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox