On 12/16/14 at 10:01am, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:00:40PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
In queue_read_lock_slowpath, when writer count becomes 0, we needDid you actually look at the ASM generated? I suspect your change makes
increment the read count and get the lock. Then need call
rspin_until_writer_unlock to check again if an incoming writer
steals the lock in the gap. But in rspin_until_writer_unlock
it only checks the writer count, namely low 8 bit of lock->cnts,
no need to subtract the reader count unit specifically. So remove
that subtraction to make it clearer, rspin_until_writer_unlock
just takes the actual lock->cnts as the 2nd argument.
And also change the code comment in queue_write_lock_slowpath to
make it more exact and explicit.
Signed-off-by: Baoquan He<bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
index f956ede..ae66c10 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
while (atomic_read(&lock->cnts)& _QW_WMASK)
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
- cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS,&lock->cnts) - _QR_BIAS;
+ cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS,&lock->cnts);
rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, cnts);
it bigger.
It does make it bigger. But it doesn't matter. Because in
rspin_until_writer_unlock it only compqre (cnts& _QW_WMASK)
with _QW_LOCKED. So using incremented reader count doesn't impact
the result. Anyway it will get the actual lock->cnts in
rspin_until_writer_unlock in next loop. I can't see why we need
subtract that reader count increment specifically.
When I read this code, thought there's some special usage. Finally I
realized it doesn't have special usage, and doesn't have to do that.