Message-ID: <1430244355.2004.14.camel@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup
 after up_read/up_write
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:05:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1430243401.4463.4.camel@j-VirtualBox>
References: <1429898069-28907-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	 <20150428171734.GH23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1430243401.4463.4.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1139
Lines: 36

On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 10:50 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 19:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > To me it makes more sense to reverse these two branches (identical code
> > wise of course) and put the special case first.
> > 
> > Alternatively we could also do something like the below, which to my
> > eyes looks a little better still, but I don't care too much.
> > 
> > 	if (rwsem_has_spinner(sem)) {
> > 		/*
> > 		 * comment ...
> > 		 */
> > 		 smp_rmb();
> > 		 if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags))
> > 			return sem;
> > 		 goto locked;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> > locked:
> 
> How about putting this into its own function:

I'd actually prefer reusing the current function. We have so many
utility functions that we've over-encapsulated the code a bit, it makes
reading _harder_, imho.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/