Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:30:01PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/15/19 3:25 PM, Alex Kogan wrote:
> >  /*
> > - * On 64-bit architectures, the mcs_spinlock structure will be 16 bytes in
> > - * size and four of them will fit nicely in one 64-byte cacheline. For
> > - * pvqspinlock, however, we need more space for extra data. To accommodate
> > - * that, we insert two more long words to pad it up to 32 bytes. IOW, only
> > - * two of them can fit in a cacheline in this case. That is OK as it is rare
> > - * to have more than 2 levels of slowpath nesting in actual use. We don't
> > - * want to penalize pvqspinlocks to optimize for a rare case in native
> > - * qspinlocks.
> > + * On 64-bit architectures, the mcs_spinlock structure will be 20 bytes in
> > + * size. For pvqspinlock or the NUMA-aware variant, however, we need more
> > + * space for extra data. To accommodate that, we insert two more long words
> > + * to pad it up to 36 bytes.
> >   */

> The 20 bytes figure is wrong. It is actually 24 bytes for 64-bit as the
> mcs_spinlock structure is 8-byte aligned. For better cacheline
> alignment, I will like to keep mcs_spinlock to 16 bytes as before.
> Instead, you can use encode_tail() to store the CNA node pointer in
> "locked". For instance, use (encode_tail() << 1) in locked to
> distinguish it from the regular locked=1 value.

Yes, please don't bloat this. I already don't like what Waiman did for
the paravirt case, but this is horrible.