From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] spinlock: New spinlock_refcount.h for lockless update of refcount Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:15:31 -0400 Message-ID: <51CB9233.7020508@hp.com> References: <1372268603-46748-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1372268603-46748-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20130626201713.GH6123@two.firstfloor.org> <51CB57F6.6010003@hp.com> <20130626212221.GI6123@two.firstfloor.org> <51CB7898.5070206@hp.com> <20130627010658.GL6123@two.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Viro , Jeff Layton , Miklos Szeredi , Ingo Molnar , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" , "Norton, Scott J" , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt To: Andi Kleen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130627010658.GL6123@two.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 06/26/2013 09:06 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> In the uncontended case, doing spin_unlock_wait will be similar to >> spin_can_lock. This, when combined with a cmpxchg, is still faster >> than doing 2 atomic operations in spin_lock/spin_unlock. > I'm totally against any new users of spin_unlock_wait() > > It has bizarre semantics, most likely will make various > lock optimizations impossible, it's race condition hell > for most users etc. > > spin_can_lock() is not quite as bad has a lot of the similar problems. > >> BTW, spin_can_lock is just the negation of spin_is_locked. > e.g. with elision it's not. > > -Andi OK, it is about Haswell's lock elision feature. I will see what I can do to remove those problematic function calls. Regards, Longman