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

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:00:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Well, if you didn't go to sleep, a few more questions..

I know this one!  Me sir, me me me!

> >  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.

Because __mutex_lock_common() is the slow path.  The fast path is a
couple of assembly instructions in asm/mutex.h.  If the lock isn't
contended, it will never call __mutex_lock_common().

That would make the whole exercise rather pointless; the only time worth
spinning really is if you're the only other one waiting for it ... if
there's already a waiter, you might as well go to sleep.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/