On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 14:14 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
> >> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
> >> + const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter)
> >> {
> >> struct task_struct *task = current;
> >> + bool acquired = false;
> >>
> >> + if (!waiter) {
> >> + if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
> >> + goto done;
> >
> >Why doesn't the waiter have to check mutex_can_spin_on_owner() ?
>
> afaict because mutex_can_spin_on_owner() fails immediately when the counter
> is -1, which is a nono for the waiters case.
mutex_can_spin_on_owner() returns false if the task needs to reschedule
or if the lock owner is not on_cpu. In either case, the task will end up
not spinning when it enters the spin loop. So it makes sense if the
waiter also checks mutex_can_spin_on_owner() so that the optimistic spin
queue overhead can be avoided in those cases.
Jason
