Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 1/2] futex_requeue-optimize

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@bull.net> wrote:
>
> 
> 
>   In futex_requeue(), when the 2 futexes keys hash to the same bucket, there
> is no need to move the futex_q to the end of the bucket list.
> 
> ...
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.16-rt20/kernel/futex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.16-rt20.orig/kernel/futex.c	2006-05-04 10:58:38.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rt20/kernel/futex.c	2006-05-04 10:58:55.000000000 +0200
> @@ -835,17 +835,20 @@ static int futex_requeue(u32 __user *uad
>  		if (++ret <= nr_wake) {
>  			wake_futex(this);
>  		} else {
> -			list_move_tail(&this->list, &hb2->chain);
> -			this->lock_ptr = &hb2->lock;
> +			/*
> +			 * If key1 and key2 hash to the same bucket, no
> +			 * need to requeue.
> +			 */
> +			if (likely(head1 != &hb2->chain)) {
> +				list_move_tail(&this->list, &hb2->chain);
> +				this->lock_ptr = &hb2->lock;
> +			}
>  			this->key = key2;
>  			get_key_refs(&key2);
>  			drop_count++;
>  
>  			if (ret - nr_wake >= nr_requeue)
>  				break;
> -			/* Make sure to stop if key1 == key2: */
> -			if (head1 == &hb2->chain && head1 != &next->list)
> -				head1 = &this->list;
>  		}
>  	}

For some reason I get a reject when applying this.  Which is odd, because I
see no differences in there.  Oh well - please try to work out what went
wrong and double-check that the patch which I applied still makes sense.

Should the futex code be using hlist_heads for that hashtable?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/