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 S932175AbbJMUlp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:41:45 -0400
Received: from g2t4622.austin.hp.com ([15.73.212.79]:47879 "EHLO
	g2t4622.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932074AbbJMUlo (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:41:44 -0400
Message-ID: <561D6C85.9030508@hpe.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:41:41 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow 1 lock stealing attempt
References: <1442955044-43895-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1442955044-43895-5-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20151013182338.GW3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20151013182338.GW3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10/13/2015 02:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:50:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>   	for (;; waitcnt++) {
>> +		loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD;
>> +		while (loop) {
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Spin until the lock is free
>> +			 */
>> +			for (; loop&&  READ_ONCE(l->locked); loop--)
>> +				cpu_relax();
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Seeing the lock is free, this queue head vCPU is
>> +			 * the rightful next owner of the lock. However, the
>> +			 * lock may have just been stolen by another task which
>> +			 * has entered the slowpath. So we need to use atomic
>> +			 * operation to make sure that we really get the lock.
>> +			 * Otherwise, we have to wait again.
>> +			 */
>> +			if (cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0)
>> +				goto gotlock;
>>   		}
> 		for (loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; --loop) {
> 			if (!READ_ONCE(l->locked)&&
> 			cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VA) == 0)
> 				goto gotlock;
>
> 			cpu_relax();
> 		}
>

This was the code that I used in my original patch, but it seems to 
confuse you about doing too many lock stealing. So I separated it out to 
make my intention more explicit. I will change it back to the old code.

Cheers,
Longman