On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
quoted text
> Only wait for the current holder to release the lock.
>
> spin_unlock_wait() can only be about the current holder, since
> completion of this function is inherently racy with new contenders.
> Therefore, there is no reason to wait until the lock is completely
> unlocked.

Is there really any reason for this patch? I'd rather keep the simpler
and more straightforward code unless you have actual numbers.

quoted text
> +static inline void __ticket_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> +       int tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->slock);
> +
> +       if (!(((tmp >> TICKET_SHIFT) ^ tmp) & TICKET_MASK))
> +               return; /* not locked */
> +
> +       /* wait until the current lock holder goes away */
> +       while ((lock->slock & TICKET_MASK) == (tmp & TICKET_MASK))
> +               cpu_relax();
>  }

Also, the above is just ugly. You've lost the ACCESS_ONCE() on the
lock access, and it's using another model of masking than the regular
one. Both of which may be intentional (maybe you are _trying_ to get
the compiler to just load the low bytes and avoid the 'and'), but the
whole open-coding of the logic - twice, and with different looking
masking - just makes my skin itch.

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