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 S1753161AbbJMUu3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:50:29 -0400
Received: from g2t4622.austin.hp.com ([15.73.212.79]:49112 "EHLO
	g2t4622.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752939AbbJMUu2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:50:28 -0400
Message-ID: <561D6E91.90703@hpe.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:50:25 -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> <20151013195627.GY3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20151013195627.GY3816@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 03:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:50:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> +gotlock:
>>   	/*
>> +	 * We now have the lock. We need to either clear the tail code or
>> +	 * notify the next one in queue as the new queue head.
>>   	 */
>> +	old = atomic_read(&lock->val);
>> +	while ((old&  _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) {
>> +		int val;
>> +		int new = old&  ~_Q_TAIL_MASK;
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * We are the only one in the queue, so clear the tail code
>> +		 * and return.
>> +		 */
>> +		val = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, old, new);
>> +		if (old == val)
>> +			goto done;
>> +		old = val;
>> +	}
>> +
> This i need to think about a wee bit; its almost the same...
>
>
> So the below is exactly duplicated from the normal slowpath, so why
> don't you keep that there?
>
> It would get you something like:
>
> 	if (pv_wait_head_or_steal(..))
> 		goto stolen;
>
>
> stolen:
>> +	/*
>> +	 * contended path; wait for next, release.
>> +	 */
>> +	while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
>> +		cpu_relax();
>> +
>> +	arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked);
>> +	pv_kick_node(lock, next);
> release:
> 	...

Yes, it is largely the same. I thought that you don't like too much 
change in the logic flow of the generic qspinlock code. I will make the 
change in the next revision.

Cheers,
Longman