Message ID | 20180405171912.GE4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 07:19:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:59:00PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > + > > + /* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */ > > + if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) { > > /* > > * The smp_cond_load_acquire() call above has provided the > > + * necessary acquire semantics required for locking. > > */ > > old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL); > > if (old == val) > > + goto release; /* No contention */ > > } > > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > @@ -464,8 +464,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qs > * The smp_cond_load_acquire() call above has provided the > * necessary acquire semantics required for locking. > */ > - old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL); > - if (old == val) > + if (atomic_try_cmpxchg_release(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL)) > goto release; /* No contention */ > } > > Does that also work for you? It would generate slightly better code for > x86 (not that it would matter much on this path). Assuming you meant to use atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed, then that works for me too. Will
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c @@ -464,8 +464,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qs * The smp_cond_load_acquire() call above has provided the * necessary acquire semantics required for locking. */ - old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL); - if (old == val) + if (atomic_try_cmpxchg_release(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL)) goto release; /* No contention */ }