All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	waiman.long@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: fix write unlock issue in big endian
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:57:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5751EF53.3080205@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201606030718.u537FQg0009963@mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com>

On 06/03/2016 03:17 AM, xinhui wrote:
>
> On 2016年06月02日 19:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:44:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:09:08 PM CEST Pan Xinhui wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h 
>>>> b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>>>> index 54a8e65..eadd7a3 100644
>>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>>>> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct 
>>>> qrwlock *lock)
>>>>    */
>>>>   static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
>>>>   {
>>>> -       smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
>>>> +       (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
>>>>   }
>>>
>>> Isn't this more expensive than the existing version?
>>
>> Yes, loads. And while this might be a suitable fix for asm-generic, it
>> will introduce a fairly large regression on x86 (which is currently the
>> only user of this).
>>
> well, to show respect to struct __qrwlock private field.
> We can keep smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0) in little_endian 
> machine.
> as this should be quick and no performance issue to all other 
> archs(although there is only 1 now)
>
> BUT, We need use (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, 
> &lock->cnts) in big_endian machine.
> because it's bad to export struct __qrwlock and set its private field 
> to NULL.
>
> How about code like below.
>
> static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> {
> #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
>         (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
> #else
>     smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
> #endif
> }
>
> BUT I think that would make thing a little complex to understand. :(
> So at last, in my opinion, I suggest my patch :)
> any thoughts?

Another alternative is to make queued_write_unlock() overrideable from 
asm/qrwlock.h, just like what we did with queued_spin_unlock().

Cheers,
Longman

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <waiman.long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: fix write unlock issue in big endian
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:57:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5751EF53.3080205@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201606030718.u537FQg0009963@mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com>

On 06/03/2016 03:17 AM, xinhui wrote:
>
> On 2016年06月02日 19:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:44:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:09:08 PM CEST Pan Xinhui wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h 
>>>> b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>>>> index 54a8e65..eadd7a3 100644
>>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
>>>> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct 
>>>> qrwlock *lock)
>>>>    */
>>>>   static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
>>>>   {
>>>> -       smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
>>>> +       (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
>>>>   }
>>>
>>> Isn't this more expensive than the existing version?
>>
>> Yes, loads. And while this might be a suitable fix for asm-generic, it
>> will introduce a fairly large regression on x86 (which is currently the
>> only user of this).
>>
> well, to show respect to struct __qrwlock private field.
> We can keep smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0) in little_endian 
> machine.
> as this should be quick and no performance issue to all other 
> archs(although there is only 1 now)
>
> BUT, We need use (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, 
> &lock->cnts) in big_endian machine.
> because it's bad to export struct __qrwlock and set its private field 
> to NULL.
>
> How about code like below.
>
> static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> {
> #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
>         (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
> #else
>     smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
> #endif
> }
>
> BUT I think that would make thing a little complex to understand. :(
> So at last, in my opinion, I suggest my patch :)
> any thoughts?

Another alternative is to make queued_write_unlock() overrideable from 
asm/qrwlock.h, just like what we did with queued_spin_unlock().

Cheers,
Longman

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-03 20:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-02 10:09 [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: fix write unlock issue in big endian Pan Xinhui
2016-06-02 10:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-02 11:01   ` xinhui
2016-06-02 11:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-03  7:20       ` xinhui
2016-06-02 11:02   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-03  7:17     ` xinhui
2016-06-03  7:17     ` xinhui
     [not found]     ` <201606030718.u537FQg0009963@mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com>
2016-06-03 20:57       ` Waiman Long [this message]
2016-06-03 20:57         ` Waiman Long
2016-06-06  3:15         ` xinhui
2016-06-06  3:15         ` xinhui
2016-06-08  9:22 ` Will Deacon
2016-06-14  6:11   ` xinhui
2016-06-14 10:40     ` Will Deacon
2016-06-15  3:47       ` xinhui

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5751EF53.3080205@hpe.com \
    --to=waiman.long@hpe.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
    --cc=xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.