Re: [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock

[xinhui]

On 2016å06æ27æ 15:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:59:01PM +0800, panxinhui wrote:
> > > å 2016å6æ26æï03:12ïPeter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> åéï
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:27:51AM +0800, panxinhui wrote:
> > >
> > > > by the way I still think mutex_unlock has a big overload too.
> > >
> > > Do you mean overhead?
> > oh, maybe you are right.
>
> > mutex_unlock âs implementation uses inc_return variant on  ppc, and
> > thatâs expensive. I am thinking of using  cmpxchg instead.
>
> That statement doesn't make any sense. PPC is an LL/SC arch, inc_return
> and cmpxchg are the 'same' LL/SC loop.
This is a little optimize.
if there are lock waiters, the lockval is minus X, when we call unlock, it will inc the lockval, if it is <= 0, enter unlockslowpath to wakeup the waiters, and set lockval to 1 in the slowpath.
SO there is no need to inc lockval if it is already a minus number. therefore we can save one store or loads/stores in LL/SC loops

the base idea is from code below,
if (!atomic_read(&lk)//no need to call atomic_inc_return which is expensive.
	atomic_inc_return(&lk))