From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Refactor mutex_spin_on_owner()
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:11:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150310081148.GA20417@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1425932094.2475.400.camel@j-VirtualBox>
* Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> wrote:
> This patch applies on top of tip.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Similar to what Linus suggested for rwsem_spin_on_owner(), in
> mutex_spin_on_owner(), instead of having while (true) and breaking
> out of the spin loop on lock->owner != owner, we can have the loop
> directly check for while (lock->owner == owner). This improves the
> readability of the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 17 +++++------------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 16b2d3c..1c3b7c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -224,16 +224,8 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(struct ww_mutex *lock,
> static noinline
> bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
> {
> - bool ret;
> -
> rcu_read_lock();
> - while (true) {
> - /* Return success when the lock owner changed */
> - if (lock->owner != owner) {
> - ret = true;
> - break;
> - }
> -
> + while (lock->owner == owner) {
> /*
> * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
> * checking lock->owner still matches owner, if that fails,
> @@ -242,16 +234,17 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
> */
> barrier();
>
> + /* Stop spinning when need_resched or owner is not running. */
> if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) {
> - ret = false;
> - break;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return false;
> }
>
> cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - return ret;
> + return true;
A nit: having multiple return statements in a function is not the
cleanest approach, especially when we are holding locks.
It's better to add an 'out_unlock' label to before the
rcu_read_unlock() and use that plus 'ret'.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-10 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-09 20:14 [PATCH] locking/mutex: Refactor mutex_spin_on_owner() Jason Low
2015-03-10 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-03-10 16:37 ` Jason Low
2015-03-16 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20150310081148.GA20417@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox