Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

2018-10-02 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 02:20:05PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Ah, so the reason I write it like so is because when we get here, > > val.locked_pending == 0, per the atomic_cond_read_acquire() condition. > > Ah, and I vaguely remember discussing this before. The way I read these > transition dia

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

2018-10-02 Thread Will Deacon
Hi Peter, On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:10:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 06:17:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:01:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > + > > > /* > > > - * If we observe any contention; undo and queue. > > > + * If we

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

2018-10-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 06:17:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:01:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > + > > /* > > -* If we observe any contention; undo and queue. > > +* If we observe contention, there was a concurrent lock. > > Nit: I think "concurrent lo

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

2018-10-01 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:01:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > While working my way through the code again; I felt the comments could > use help. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) > --- > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 40 > 1 file changed, 28

[RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments

2018-09-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
While working my way through the code again; I felt the comments could use help. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) --- kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 40 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c +++ b/kernel/