Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

[Darren Hart]

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if
> we know beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. This comes
> at the smaller cost of doing some atomic operations to keep track of
> the list's size. Specifically, increment the counter when an element is
> added to the list, and decrement when it is removed. Of course, if the
> counter is 0, then there are no tasks blocked on a futex. Some special
> considerations:
> 
> - increment the counter at queue_lock() as we always end up calling
>   queue_me() which adds the element to the list. Upon any error,
>   queue_unlock() is called for housekeeping, for which we decrement
>   to mach the increment done in queue_lock().
> 
> - decrement the counter at __unqueue_me() to reflect when an element is
>   removed from the queue for wakeup related purposes.

What is the problem you are trying to solve here?

The fast-path in futexes is not calling into the kernel at all, if
you've made the syscall, you've already lost. What kind of improvement
are you seeing by adding this optimization? Is it worth the introduction
of atomic operations into a file known to the state of California to
increase the risk of liver failure?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/