On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:57:33PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Yes, that looks fine. I'd remove that if (prev < 0) entirely though.
> > We'll just swap a 0 for a 0 if the count wasn't < 0, or a 0 for a 1 if
> > the mutex just got unlocked which is also fine. This is especially
> > beneficial when a native xchg processor instruction is used.
>
> In fact, this suggestion isn't entirely correct either. The inner xchg
> in this case should be -1 and not 'count'. If 'count' is 0 and the
> mutex becomes contended in the small window between the two xchg's then
> the contention mark would be lost again.
>
> In other words, I think this should look like this:
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> index 580a6d35c7..44a66c99c8 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> @@ -25,8 +25,11 @@
> static inline void
> __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
> {
> - if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
> - fail_fn(count);
> + if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1)) {
> + /* Mark lock contention explicitly */
> + if (likely(atomic_xchg(count, -1) != 1))
> + fail_fn(count);
> + }
> }
>
> /**
Doesn't this mean that we're no longer just swapping 0 for a 0 if the lock
was taken, therefore needlessly sending the current owner down the slowpath
on unlock? If we have the explicit test, that doesn't happen and the
disassembly isn't much different (an additional cmp/conditional branch).
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
