[PATCH 4.14 27/72] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Thu Dec 20 2018 - 04:26:47 EST
4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
commit 53bf57fab7321fb42b703056a4c80fc9d986d170 upstream.
Flip the branch condition after atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL)
such that we loose the indent. This also result in a more natural code
flow IMO.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: longman@xxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130257.156322446@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index 841550dfb7b8..9ffc2f9af8b8 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -324,38 +324,36 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
* 0,0,1 -> 0,1,1 ; pending
*/
val = atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
- if (!(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
- /*
- * We're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
- *
- * *,1,1 -> *,1,0
- *
- * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
- * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
- * sequentiality; this is because not all
- * clear_pending_set_locked() implementations imply full
- * barriers.
- */
- if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK) {
- smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
- !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
- }
-
- /*
- * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
- *
- * *,1,0 -> *,0,1
- */
- clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
- return;
+ /*
+ * If we observe any contention; undo and queue.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
+ if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
+ clear_pending(lock);
+ goto queue;
}
/*
- * If pending was clear but there are waiters in the queue, then
- * we need to undo our setting of pending before we queue ourselves.
+ * We're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
+ *
+ * 0,1,1 -> 0,1,0
+ *
+ * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
+ * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
+ * sequentiality; this is because not all
+ * clear_pending_set_locked() implementations imply full
+ * barriers.
+ */
+ if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
+ smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
+
+ /*
+ * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
+ *
+ * 0,1,0 -> 0,0,1
*/
- if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
- clear_pending(lock);
+ clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
+ return;
/*
* End of pending bit optimistic spinning and beginning of MCS
--
2.19.1