[PATCH v3 next 5/5] Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path

[david . laight . linux]

From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx>

When osq_lock() returns false or osq_unlock() returns static
analysis shows that node->next should always be NULL.
This means that it isn't necessary to explicitly set it to NULL
prior to atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr) on entry to osq_lock().

Defer determining the address of the CPU's 'node' until after the
atomic_exchange() so that it isn't done in the uncontented path.

Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 0619691e2756..3f0cfdf1cd0f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -92,13 +92,10 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
 
 bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 {
-	struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
-	struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
+	struct optimistic_spin_node *node, *prev, *next;
 	unsigned int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
 	unsigned int prev_cpu;
 
-	node->next = NULL;
-
 	/*
 	 * We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
 	 * unlock() uncontended, or fastpath) and RELEASE (to publish
@@ -109,6 +106,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	if (prev_cpu == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
 		return true;
 
+	node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
 	WRITE_ONCE(node->prev_cpu, prev_cpu);
 	prev = decode_cpu(prev_cpu);
 	node->locked = 0;
-- 
2.39.5