From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'peterz@infradead.org'" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"'longman@redhat.com'" <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: "'mingo@redhat.com'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"'will@kernel.org'" <will@kernel.org>,
"'boqun.feng@gmail.com'" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"'xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com'" <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"'virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org'"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH next 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Clarify osq_wait_next()
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 20:56:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7c8828aec72e42eeb841ca0ee3397e9a@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73a4b31c9c874081baabad9e5f2e5204@AcuMS.aculab.com>
osq_wait_next() is passed 'prev' from osq_lock() and NULL from osq_unlock()
but only needs the 'cpu' value to write to lock->tail.
Just pass prev->cpu or OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL instead.
Also directly return NULL or 'next' instead of breaking the loop.
Should have no effect on the generated code since gcc manages to
assume that 'prev != NULL' due to an earlier dereference.
Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
---
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 55f5db896c02..9bb3a077ba92 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -48,18 +48,17 @@ static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *
osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
struct optimistic_spin_node *node,
- struct optimistic_spin_node *prev)
+ int old)
{
- struct optimistic_spin_node *next = NULL;
+ struct optimistic_spin_node *next;
int curr = node->cpu;
- int old;
/*
- * If there is a prev node in queue, then the 'old' value will be
- * the prev node's CPU #, else it's set to OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL since if
- * we're currently last in queue, then the queue will then become empty.
+ * If osq_lock() is being cancelled there must be a previous node
+ * and 'old' is its CPU #.
+ * For osq_unlock() there is never a previous node and old is set
+ * to OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL.
*/
- old = prev ? prev->cpu : OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL;
for (;;) {
if (atomic_read(&lock->tail) == curr &&
@@ -69,7 +68,7 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
* will now observe @lock and will complete its
* unlock()/unqueue().
*/
- break;
+ return NULL;
}
/*
@@ -85,13 +84,11 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
if (node->next) {
next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
if (next)
- break;
+ return next;
}
cpu_relax();
}
-
- return next;
}
bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
@@ -192,7 +189,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
* back to @prev.
*/
- next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, prev);
+ next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, prev->cpu);
if (!next)
return false;
@@ -232,7 +229,7 @@ void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
return;
}
- next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
+ next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL);
if (next)
WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
}
--
2.17.1
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-29 20:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-29 20:51 [PATCH next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
2023-12-29 20:53 ` [PATCH next 1/5] locking/osq_lock: Move the definition of optimistic_spin_node into osf_lock.c David Laight
2023-12-30 1:59 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-29 20:54 ` [PATCH next 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid dirtying the local cpu's 'node' in the osq_lock() fast path David Laight
2023-12-29 20:56 ` David Laight [this message]
2023-12-29 22:54 ` [PATCH next 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Clarify osq_wait_next() Linus Torvalds
2023-12-30 2:54 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-29 20:57 ` [PATCH next 4/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise per-cpu data accesses David Laight
2023-12-30 3:08 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 11:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-30 11:35 ` David Laight
2023-12-31 3:04 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-31 10:36 ` David Laight
2023-12-30 20:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-30 22:47 ` David Laight
2023-12-30 20:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-12-30 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-12-31 11:56 ` David Laight
2023-12-31 11:41 ` David Laight
2023-12-29 20:58 ` [PATCH next 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check David Laight
2023-12-30 3:13 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 15:57 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 22:37 ` David Laight
2023-12-29 22:11 ` [PATCH next 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid dirtying the local cpu's 'node' in the osq_lock() fast path David Laight
2023-12-30 3:20 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 15:49 ` David Laight
2024-01-02 18:53 ` Boqun Feng
2024-01-02 23:32 ` David Laight
2023-12-30 19:40 ` [PATCH next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code Linus Torvalds
2023-12-30 22:39 ` David Laight
2023-12-31 2:14 ` Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7c8828aec72e42eeb841ca0ee3397e9a@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=zengheng4@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®