On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:52:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 01:28:13PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > If not, then sure we can do this; it's not like I managed to get rid of
> > > muteX_is_locked() -- and I actually tried at some point :/
> > >
> > > And just now I grepped for it, and look what I find:
> > >
> > > drivers/hid/hid-nintendo.c: if (unlikely(mutex_is_locked(&ctlr->output_mutex))) {
> > > drivers/nvdimm/btt.c: if (mutex_is_locked(&arena->err_lock)
> > >
> > > And there's more :-(
> >
> > Are these actually abuse? I looked at these two, and they both seem to
> > be asking "Does somebody else currently have this mutex?" rather than
> > "Do I have this mutex?".
>
> It's effectively a random number generator in that capacity. Someone
> might have it or might have had it when you looked and no longer have
> it, or might have it now but not when you asked.
Well, no.
if (mutex_is_locked(&arena->err_lock)
|| arena->freelist[lane].has_err) {
nd_region_release_lane(btt->nd_region, lane);
ret = arena_clear_freelist_error(arena, lane);
So that's "Is somebody currently processing an error, or have they
already finished setting an error". Sure, it's somewhat racy, but
it looks like a performance optimisation, not something that needs
100% accuracy.
The other one's in a similar boat; an optimisation if anyone else is
currently holding this mutex:
/*
* Immediately after receiving a report is the most reliable time to
* send a subcommand to the controller. Wake any subcommand senders
* waiting for a report.
*/
if (unlikely(mutex_is_locked(&ctlr->output_mutex))) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&ctlr->lock, flags);
ctlr->received_input_report = true;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctlr->lock, flags);
wake_up(&ctlr->wait);
}
Sure, they might not still be holding it, or it may have been grabbed
one clock tick later; that just means they miss out on this optimisation.
