absl: optimize Condition checks in Mutex code

1. Remove special handling of Condition::kTrue.

Condition::kTrue is used very rarely (frequently its uses even indicate
confusion and bugs). But we pay few additional branches for kTrue
on all Condition operations.
Remove that special handling and simplify logic.

2. And remove known_false condition in Mutex code.

Checking known_false condition only causes slow down because:
1. We already built skip list with equivalent conditions
(and keep improving it on every Skip call). And when we built
the skip list, we used more capable GuaranteedEqual function
(it does not just check for equality of pointers,
but for also for equality of function/arg).

2. Condition pointer are rarely equal even for equivalent conditions
becuase temp Condition objects are usually created on the stack.
We could call GuaranteedEqual(cond, known_false) instead of cond == known_false,
but that slows down things even more (see point 1).

So remove the known_false optimization.
Benchmark results for this and the previous change:

name                        old cpu/op   new cpu/op   delta
BM_ConditionWaiters/0/1     36.0ns ± 0%  34.9ns ± 0%   -3.02%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/1/1     36.0ns ± 0%  34.9ns ± 0%   -2.98%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/2/1     35.9ns ± 0%  34.9ns ± 0%   -3.03%  (p=0.016 n=5+4)
BM_ConditionWaiters/0/8     55.5ns ± 5%  49.8ns ± 3%  -10.33%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/1/8     36.2ns ± 0%  35.2ns ± 0%   -2.90%  (p=0.016 n=5+4)
BM_ConditionWaiters/2/8     53.2ns ± 7%  48.3ns ± 7%     ~     (p=0.056 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/0/64     295ns ± 1%   254ns ± 2%  -13.73%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/1/64    36.2ns ± 0%  35.2ns ± 0%   -2.85%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/2/64     290ns ± 6%   250ns ± 4%  -13.68%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/0/512   5.50µs ±12%  4.99µs ± 8%     ~     (p=0.056 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/1/512   36.7ns ± 3%  35.2ns ± 0%   -4.10%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/2/512   4.44µs ±13%  4.01µs ± 3%   -9.74%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/0/4096   104µs ± 6%   101µs ± 3%     ~     (p=0.548 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/1/4096  36.2ns ± 0%  35.1ns ± 0%   -3.03%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/2/4096  90.4µs ± 5%  85.3µs ± 7%     ~     (p=0.222 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/0/8192   384µs ± 5%   367µs ± 7%     ~     (p=0.222 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/1/8192  36.2ns ± 0%  35.2ns ± 0%   -2.84%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)
BM_ConditionWaiters/2/8192   363µs ± 3%   316µs ± 7%  -12.84%  (p=0.008 n=5+5)

PiperOrigin-RevId: 565669535
Change-Id: I5180c4a787933d2ce477b004a111853753304684

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/absl/synchronization/mutex_test.cc b/absl/synchronization/mutex_test.cc
index 0bca46c5..6c38c07c 100644
--- a/absl/synchronization/mutex_test.cc
+++ b/absl/synchronization/mutex_test.cc
@@ -1025,6 +1025,19 @@ TEST(Mutex, FunctorCondition) {
   }
 }
 
+TEST(Mutex, ConditionSwap) {
+  // Ensure that Conditions can be swap'ed.
+  bool b1 = true;
+  absl::Condition c1(&b1);
+  bool b2 = false;
+  absl::Condition c2(&b2);
+  EXPECT_TRUE(c1.Eval());
+  EXPECT_FALSE(c2.Eval());
+  std::swap(c1, c2);
+  EXPECT_FALSE(c1.Eval());
+  EXPECT_TRUE(c2.Eval());
+}
+
 // --------------------------------------------------------
 // Test for bug with pattern of readers using a condvar.  The bug was that if a
 // reader went to sleep on a condition variable while one or more other readers