From be1f7bf217ebb1e42190d7d0b332c89ea7871378 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Low Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:59:27 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Refactor mutex_spin_on_owner() As suggested by Davidlohr, we could refactor mutex_spin_on_owner(). Currently, we split up owner_running() with mutex_spin_on_owner(). When the owner changes, we make duplicate owner checks which are not necessary. It also makes the code a bit obscure as we are using a second check to figure out why we broke out of the loop. This patch modifies it such that we remove the owner_running() function and the mutex_spin_on_owner() loop directly checks for if the owner changes, if the owner is not running, or if we need to reschedule. If the owner changes, we break out of the loop and return true. If the owner is not running or if we need to reschedule, then break out of the loop and return false. Suggested-by: Davidlohr Bueso Signed-off-by: Jason Low Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Tim Chen Cc: chegu_vinod@hp.com Cc: tglx@linutronix.de Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1422914367-5574-3-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/locking/mutex.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index 49cce442f3ff..59cd6c30421e 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -217,44 +217,41 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(struct ww_mutex *lock, } #ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER -static inline bool owner_running(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner) -{ - if (lock->owner != owner) - return false; - - /* - * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_ checking - * lock->owner still matches owner, if that fails, owner might - * point to free()d memory, if it still matches, the rcu_read_lock() - * ensures the memory stays valid. - */ - barrier(); - - return owner->on_cpu; -} - /* * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer * access and not reliable. */ static noinline -int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner) +bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner) { + bool ret; + rcu_read_lock(); - while (owner_running(lock, owner)) { - if (need_resched()) + while (true) { + /* Return success when the lock owner changed */ + if (lock->owner != owner) { + ret = true; break; + } + + /* + * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_ + * checking lock->owner still matches owner, if that fails, + * owner might point to free()d memory, if it still matches, + * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid. + */ + barrier(); + + if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) { + ret = false; + break; + } cpu_relax_lowlatency(); } rcu_read_unlock(); - /* - * We break out of the loop above on either need_resched(), when - * the owner is not running, or when the lock owner changed. - * Return success only when the lock owner changed. - */ - return lock->owner != owner; + return ret; } /* -- 2.39.5