On Jul 16, 2019, at 6:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:25:33PM -0400, Alex Kogan wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * set_locked_empty_mcs - Try to set the spinlock value to _Q_LOCKED_VAL,
>> + * and by doing that unlock the MCS lock when its waiting queue is empty
>> + * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
>> + * @val: Current value of the lock
>> + * @node: Pointer to the MCS node of the lock holder
>> + *
>> + * *,*,* -> 0,0,1
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline bool __set_locked_empty_mcs(struct qspinlock *lock,
>> + u32 val,
>> + struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>> +{
>> + return atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
>> +}
>
> That name is nonsense. It should be something like:
>
> static __always_inline bool __try_clear_tail(…)
We already have set_locked(), so I was trying to convey the fact that we are
doing the same here, but only when the MCS chain is empty.
I can use __try_clear_tail() instead.
>
>
>> +/*
>> + * pass_mcs_lock - pass the MCS lock to the next waiter
>> + * @node: Pointer to the MCS node of the lock holder
>> + * @next: Pointer to the MCS node of the first waiter in the MCS queue
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline void __pass_mcs_lock(struct mcs_spinlock *node,
>> + struct mcs_spinlock *next)
>> +{
>> + arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked, 1);
>> +}
>
> I'm not entirely happy with that name either; but it's not horrible like
> the other one. Why not mcs_spin_unlock_contended() ?
Sure, I can use mcs_spin_unlock_contended() instead.
Thanks,
— Alex
