Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

["Hart, Darren" <darren.hart@intel.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1387 bytes --]

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 21:40 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if
> > we know beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. This comes
> > at the smaller cost of doing some atomic operations to keep track of
> > the list's size. Specifically, increment the counter when an element is
> > added to the list, and decrement when it is removed. Of course, if the
> > counter is 0, then there are no tasks blocked on a futex. Some special
> > considerations:
> > 
> > - increment the counter at queue_lock() as we always end up calling
> >   queue_me() which adds the element to the list. Upon any error,
> >   queue_unlock() is called for housekeeping, for which we decrement
> >   to mach the increment done in queue_lock().
> > 
> > - decrement the counter at __unqueue_me() to reflect when an element is
> >   removed from the queue for wakeup related purposes.
> 
> What is the problem you are trying to solve here?

Apologies, too quick on the trigger. I see plenty of detail in 0/5. Will
spend some time reviewing that.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥