On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:57:41PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 11:13 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:52:05AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Releases the lock. The caller should pass in the corresponding node that
> > > + * was used to acquire the lock.
> > > + */
> > > static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> > > {
> > > struct mcs_spinlock *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
> > > @@ -51,7 +60,7 @@ static void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *nod
> > > /*
> > > * Release the lock by setting it to NULL
> > > */
> > > - if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node)
> > > + if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
> >
> > Agreed here as well. Takes a narrow race to hit this.
> >
> > So, did your testing exercise this path? If the answer is "yes",
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I did some instrumentation and confirmed that the path in question has
> been exercised. So this patch should be okay.
Very good!
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>