From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932784AbcDTOS1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:18:27 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:38102 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932107AbcDTOS0 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:18:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:18:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Add lock holder CPU argument to
 pv_wait()
Message-ID: <20160420141819.GD3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1460659318-53312-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <20160420120805.GB3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <57178EED.1060207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57178EED.1060207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:15:09PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> >> +static struct pv_node *pv_lookup_hash(struct qspinlock *lock)
> >> +{
> >> +	unsigned long offset, hash = hash_ptr(lock, pv_lock_hash_bits);
> >> +	struct pv_hash_entry *he;
> >> +
> >> +	for_each_hash_entry(he, offset, hash) {
> >> +		struct qspinlock *l = READ_ONCE(he->lock);
> >> +
> >> +		if (l == lock)
> > 
> > The other loop writes:
> > 
> > 		if (READ_ONCE(he->lock) == lock)
> > 
> Maybe because we check l is NULL or not later. So save one load.

Ah duh, yes.

> >> +			return READ_ONCE(he->node);
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * Presence of an empty slot signal the end of search. We
> >> +		 * may miss the entry, but that will limit the amount of
> >> +		 * time doing the search when the desired entry isn't there.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		else if (!l)
> >> +			break;
> > 
> > That 'else' is entirely pointless. Also, why isn't this: return NULL;
> > 
> >> +	}
> >> +	return NULL;
> > 
> > and this BUG() ?
> > 
> It's not a bug, the lock might not be stored in the hashtable. in unlock function, we will unhash the lock, then what will happen is:

It should be if the above becomes a return NULL, no?

If we can iterate the _entire_ hashtable, this lookup can be immensely
expensive and we should not be doing it inside of a wait-loop.