[PATCH STABLE v4.9 08/10] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

commit 53bf57fab7321fb42b703056a4c80fc9d986d170 upstream.

Flip the branch condition after atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL)
such that we loose the indent. This also result in a more natural code
flow IMO.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com
Cc: longman@redhat.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130257.156322446@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index ba5dc86a4d831..f493a4fce6243 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -440,38 +440,36 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	 * 0,0,1 -> 0,1,1 ; pending
 	 */
 	val = atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
-	if (!(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
-		/*
-		 * We're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
-		 *
-		 * *,1,1 -> *,1,0
-		 *
-		 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
-		 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
-		 * sequentiality; this is because not all
-		 * clear_pending_set_locked() implementations imply full
-		 * barriers.
-		 */
-		if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK) {
-			smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
-					      !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
-		}
-
-		/*
-		 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
-		 *
-		 * *,1,0 -> *,0,1
-		 */
-		clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
-		return;
+	/*
+	 * If we observe any contention; undo and queue.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
+		if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
+			clear_pending(lock);
+		goto queue;
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * If pending was clear but there are waiters in the queue, then
-	 * we need to undo our setting of pending before we queue ourselves.
+	 * We're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
+	 *
+	 * 0,1,1 -> 0,1,0
+	 *
+	 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
+	 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
+	 * sequentiality; this is because not all
+	 * clear_pending_set_locked() implementations imply full
+	 * barriers.
 	 */
-	if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
-		clear_pending(lock);
+	if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
+		smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
+
+	/*
+	 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
+	 *
+	 * 0,1,0 -> 0,0,1
+	 */
+	clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
+	return;
 
 	/*
 	 * End of pending bit optimistic spinning and beginning of MCS
-- 
2.20.1