From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] xen: use ticket locks for spin locks
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:29:17 +0100
Message-ID: <5528086D.7090407@cantab.net>
References: <1428675597-28465-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>	<1428675597-28465-6-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<5527FDF6.3030706@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <dvrabel@cantab.net>) id 1Ygck8-0002d2-EP
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:29:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5527FDF6.3030706@oracle.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org



On 10/04/2015 17:44, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> 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();
> }

We need to only call LOCK_PROFILE_BLOCK once when we start blocking.

>> @@ -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?

Yes. Only the lock holder writes to head.

David