Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Indeed, the below does boot -- which means I get to sleep now ;-)

Well, if you didn't go to sleep, a few more questions..

>  int __sched
>  mutex_lock_killable_nested(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int subclass)
>  {
> +	int ret;
> +
>  	might_sleep();
> -	return __mutex_lock_common(lock, TASK_KILLABLE, subclass, _RET_IP_);
> +	ret =  __mutex_lock_common(lock, TASK_KILLABLE, subclass, _RET_IP_);
> +	if (!ret)
> +		lock->owner = current;
> +
> +	return ret;

This looks ugly. Why doesn't __mutex_lock_common() just set the lock 
owner? Hate seeing it done in the caller that has to re-compute common 
(yeah, yeah, it's cheap) and just looks ugly.

IOW, why didn't this just get done with something like

	--- a/kernel/mutex.c
	+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
	@@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
	 done:
	 	lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
	 	/* got the lock - rejoice! */
	+	lock->owner = task;
	 	mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, task_thread_info(task));
	 	debug_mutex_set_owner(lock, task_thread_info(task));

instead?  That takes care of all callers, including the conditional thing 
(since the error case is a totally different path).

		Linus
--
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/