Hi Peter, On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 12:44 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:04:10PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > @@ -80,7 +81,9 @@ static inline void queued_read_lock(struct qrwlock *lock) > > return; > > > > /* The slowpath will decrement the reader count, if necessary. */ > > + LOCK_CONTENTION_BEGIN(lock, LCB_F_READ); > > queued_read_lock_slowpath(lock); > > + LOCK_CONTENTION_END(lock); > > } > > > > /** > > @@ -94,7 +97,9 @@ static inline void queued_write_lock(struct qrwlock *lock) > > if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, &cnts, _QW_LOCKED))) > > return; > > > > + LOCK_CONTENTION_BEGIN(lock, LCB_F_WRITE); > > queued_write_lock_slowpath(lock); > > + LOCK_CONTENTION_END(lock); > > } > > > @@ -82,7 +83,9 @@ static __always_inline void queued_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > > if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL))) > > return; > > > > + LOCK_CONTENTION_BEGIN(lock, 0); > > queued_spin_lock_slowpath(lock, val); > > + LOCK_CONTENTION_END(lock); > > } > > Can you please stick that _inside_ the slowpath? You really don't want > to inline that. I can move it into the slow path with caller ip. Thanks, Namhyung
