Message-ID: <58055CF8.2060806@hpe.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:21:28 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 8/8] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of
 woken waiter
References: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org> <20161007150211.416377482@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161007150211.416377482@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2016 23:21:33.7094 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DF4PR84MB0313
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 924
Lines: 23

On 10/07/2016 10:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -600,7 +630,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
>   	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
>
>   	if (__mutex_trylock(lock, false) ||
> -	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx)) {
> +	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, false)) {
>   		/* got the lock, yay! */
>   		lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
>   		if (use_ww_ctx)
> @@ -669,7 +699,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
>   		 * state back to RUNNING and fall through the next schedule(),
>   		 * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
>   		 */
> -		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +		if ((first&&  mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, true)) ||
> +		     __mutex_trylock(lock, first))

Do we need a __mutex_trylock() here? mutex_optimistic_spin() will do the 
trylock and we have one at the top of the loop.

Cheers,
Longman