On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 09:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 04:56:50PM -0400, Andev wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Pranith Kumar <pran...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> > > remove a redundant comparision
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> > > index 1f99664b..6f8bd3c 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> > > @@ -249,8 +249,7 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(long count,
> > > struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > {
> > > if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
> > > /* try acquiring the write lock */
> > > - if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> > > - cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> > > + if (cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> > > RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
> >
> > This was mainly done to avoid the cost of a cmpxchg in case where they
> > are not equal. Not sure if it really makes a difference though.
>
> It does, a cache hot cmpxchg instruction is 24 cycles (as is pretty much
> any other LOCKed ins, as measured on my WSM-EP), not to mention that
> cmpxchg is a RMW so it needs to grab the cacheline in exclusive mode.
>
> A read, which allows the cacheline to remain in shared, and non LOCKed
> ops are way faster.
Yep, and we also do it in mutexes. The numbers and benefits on larger
systems speaks for themselves. It would, perhaps, be worth adding a
comment as it does seem redundant if you're not thinking about the
cacheline when reading the code.
--
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/
