Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow 1 lock stealing attempt

[Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>]

On 10/14/2015 05:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:50:25PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 10/13/2015 03:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> So the below is exactly duplicated from the normal slowpath, so why
>>> don't you keep that there?
>>>
>>> It would get you something like:
>>>
>>> 	if (pv_wait_head_or_steal(..))
>>> 		goto stolen;
>>>
>>>
>>> stolen:
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * contended path; wait for next, release.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
>>>> +		cpu_relax();
>>>> +
>>>> +	arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked);
>>>> +	pv_kick_node(lock, next);
>>> release:
>>> 	...
>> Yes, it is largely the same. I thought that you don't like too much change
>> in the logic flow of the generic qspinlock code. I will make the change in
>> the next revision.
> Well, you already put the branch in there, the only difference here is
> an 'extra' label. OTOH that extra label avoids duplicating some hairy
> code. So over all I would say its a definite win.
>
> And its easy to see it will compile away on the native case where:
>
>   #define pv_wait_head_or_steal(l, n, t) (false)
>
>

I have done it in a different way to avoid duplicating code. I think I 
am not going to use the pv_wait_head_or_steal name after all as I don't 
consider acquiring the lock by the queue head CPU is lock stealing. I 
will skip "and" and name it as pv_wait_head_lock instead. Please let me 
know if you have a better idea.

Cheers,
Longman