Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] xen: use ticket locks for spin locks

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 04/10/2015 10:19 AM, David Vrabel wrote:

> @@ -138,14 +138,17 @@ void spin_debug_disable(void)
>
>   void _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
>   {
> +    spinlock_tickets_t tickets = { .tail = 1, };
>       LOCK_PROFILE_VAR;
>
>       check_lock(&lock->debug);
> -    while ( unlikely(!_raw_spin_trylock(&lock->raw)) )
> +    tickets.head_tail = xadd(&lock->tickets, tickets.head_tail);
> +    if ( tickets.tail != read_atomic(&lock->tickets.head) )
>       {
>           LOCK_PROFILE_BLOCK;
> -        while ( likely(_raw_spin_is_locked(&lock->raw)) )
> +        do {
>               cpu_relax();
> +        } while ( tickets.tail != read_atomic(&lock->tickets.head) );
>       }


Why do you use both 'if' and 'while"? I.e. why not just

while ( tickets.tail != read_atomic(&lock->tickets.head) )
{
	LOCK_PROFILE_BLOCK;
	cpu_relax();
}




>
> @@ -194,35 +174,44 @@ void _spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
>   {
>       preempt_enable();
>       LOCK_PROFILE_REL;
> -    _raw_spin_unlock(&lock->raw);
> +    lock->tickets.head++;


Is it safe to do a plain increment here and a locked one?


-boris