Message-ID: <1429561424.8820.24.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup
 after up_read/up_write
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>, jason.low2@hp.com
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:23:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1429322598-44362-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
References: <1429322598-44362-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1003
Lines: 24

On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 22:03 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

> diff --git a/include/linux/osq_lock.h b/include/linux/osq_lock.h
> index 3a6490e..703ea5c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/osq_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/osq_lock.h
> @@ -32,4 +32,9 @@ static inline void osq_lock_init(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>  extern bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock);
>  extern void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock);
>  
> +static inline bool osq_is_locked(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> +{
> +	return atomic_read(&lock->tail) != OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL;
> +}

Would it be better to separate the addition of osq_is_locked() into its
own patch, since this can be useful for other situations and isn't just
specific to the rwsem optimization.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/