public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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