Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed

[Rik van Riel]

On 03/15/2013 06:54 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive
> lock stealing:
>
> - When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks
>    (and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake
>    the first queued process. However, stealing the lock is also sufficient
>    to deal with this case, so we don't need this check anymore.
>
> - In try_get_writer_sem(), we can steal the lock even when the first waiter
>    is a reader. This is correct because the code path that wakes readers is
>    protected by the wait_lock. As to the performance effects of this change,
>    they are expected to be minimal: readers are still granted the lock
>    (rather than having to acquire it themselves) when they reach the front
>    of the wait queue, so we have essentially the same behavior as in
>    rwsem-spinlock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/