Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] locking/mutex: Add waiter parameter to mutex_optimistic_spin()

[Waiman Long]

On 02/12/2016 03:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > @@ -358,8 +373,8 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
> >   			}
> >
> >   			mutex_set_owner(lock);
> > -			osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
> > -			return true;
> > +			acquired = true;
> > +			break;
> >   		}
> >
> >   		/*
> > @@ -380,7 +395,10 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
> >   		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> >   	}
> >
> > -	osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
> > +	if (!waiter)
> > +		osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
> > +	if (acquired || waiter)
> > +		return acquired;
> >   done:
> >   	/*
> >   	 * If we fell out of the spin path because of need_resched(),
> Is there a reason to not also preempt in the wait-loop? Surely the same
> reason is still valid there too?

The waiter does check for need_sched(). So it will break out of the loop 
and return false in this case. This causes the waiter to loop back and 
goes to sleep if the lock can't be acquired. That is why I don't think 
we need to do another schedule_preempt_disabled() here.

Cheers,
Longman