If the queue head is the only one in the queue and nobody is concurrently
setting PENDING bit, the uncontended transition should be n,0,0 -> 0,0,1.
Fix the typo.
Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <[email protected]>
---
kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index cbff6ba53d56..591835415698 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
* If we observe contention, there is a concurrent locker.
*
* Undo and queue; our setting of PENDING might have made the
- * n,0,0 -> 0,0,0 transition fail and it will now be waiting
+ * n,0,0 -> 0,0,1 transition fail and it will now be waiting
* on @next to become !NULL.
*/
if (unlikely(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
--
2.19.1
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:08:47AM +0800, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> If the queue head is the only one in the queue and nobody is concurrently
> setting PENDING bit, the uncontended transition should be n,0,0 -> 0,0,1.
>
> Fix the typo.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index cbff6ba53d56..591835415698 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> * If we observe contention, there is a concurrent locker.
> *
> * Undo and queue; our setting of PENDING might have made the
> - * n,0,0 -> 0,0,0 transition fail and it will now be waiting
> + * n,0,0 -> 0,0,1 transition fail and it will now be waiting
> * on @next to become !NULL.
> */
I think this is an important typo fix as you're right that we don't
transition directly from having a waitqueue installed in the tail straight
to an unlocked state.
Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
Then again, I acked the patch introducing this comment so what do I know?
Will
On 8/9/21 9:40 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:08:47AM +0800, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> If the queue head is the only one in the queue and nobody is concurrently
>> setting PENDING bit, the uncontended transition should be n,0,0 -> 0,0,1.
>>
>> Fix the typo.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> index cbff6ba53d56..591835415698 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>> * If we observe contention, there is a concurrent locker.
>> *
>> * Undo and queue; our setting of PENDING might have made the
>> - * n,0,0 -> 0,0,0 transition fail and it will now be waiting
>> + * n,0,0 -> 0,0,1 transition fail and it will now be waiting
>> * on @next to become !NULL.
>> */
> I think this is an important typo fix as you're right that we don't
> transition directly from having a waitqueue installed in the tail straight
> to an unlocked state.
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
>
> Then again, I acked the patch introducing this comment so what do I know?
We usually focus more on the actual code than the associated comment. I
am not surprise we may miss that. I do agree that the proposed change is
better.
Acked-by: Waiman Long <[email protected]>