On 04/16/2013 12:24 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 10:37 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: [...]+typedef struct mspin_node { + struct mspin_node *next; + int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */ +} mspin_node_t; + +typedef mspin_node_t *mspin_lock_t;I think we could do without the typedefs, specially mspin_lock_t.
Yes, we can do without the typedefs.
+ +#define MLOCK(mutex) ((mspin_lock_t *)&((mutex)->spin_mlock)) + +static noinline void mspin_lock(mspin_lock_t *lock, mspin_node_t *node) +{ + mspin_node_t *prev; + + /* Init node */ + node->locked = 0; + node->next = NULL; + + prev = xchg(lock, node); + if (likely(prev == NULL)) { + /* Lock acquired */ + node->locked = 1; + return; + } + ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node; + smp_wmb(); + /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */ + while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) + arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); +} + +static void mspin_unlock(mspin_lock_t *lock, mspin_node_t *node) +{ + mspin_node_t *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next); + + if (likely(!next)) { + /* + * Release the lock by setting it to NULL + */ + if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node) + return; + /* Wait until the next pointer is set */ + while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))) + arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); + } + barrier(); + ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; + smp_wmb();Do we really need the compiler barrier call? The CPUs can reorder anyway. I assume the smp_wbm() call makes sure no there's no funny business before the next lock is acquired, might be worth commenting.
The smp_wmb() calls are to make sure that the writes are committed to memory rather than staying in the cache only. They are safety measures. The barrier() call probably is not needed because of the next pointer data dependency, but it doesn't have an actual cost either as it doesn't translate to any instruction.
Regards, Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
