Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] locking/mutex: Try to acquire mutex only if it is unlocked

[Jason Low]

On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 23:24 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 05:26 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 21:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Please make them inline functions, also can we rename the SHOW_NO_WAITER
> >> thing, because its not at all clear to me wtf it does; should it be
> >> called: mutex_no_waiters() or somesuch?
> > Okay, I can make them inline functions. I mainly added the macro to keep
> > it consistent with the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER() check, but we can surely
> > make this more clear. mutex_no_waiters() sounds fine, or perhaps
> > something like mutex_has_no_waiters()?
> >
> 
> You can remove the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER macro as all the call sites are 
> to be replaced.

Sure.

> I didn't check directly for unlocked count because of 
> fairness concern in my original patch, but I think checking directly for 
> unlocked count should be fine too.

Can you elaborate on the "fairness concern"? In the current code, we're
already directly checking for unlocked count in
atomic_read(&lock->count) == 1 if that's what you're referring to.

Thanks,
Jason

--
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/