Re: [PATCH v3] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read/up_write

[Jason Low]

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:

static inline bool __rwsem_wake_acquire_wait_lock(sem)
{
	/*
	 *
	 * Comments
	 *
	 */
	if (unlikely(rwsem_has_spinner(sem))) {
		/*
		 * Comments
		 */
		smp_rmb();
		if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags))
			return false;
	}

	return true;
}


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