linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Mateusz Guzik" <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	"linux-arch" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	<viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jan Glauber" <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 15:36:10 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CPQTHRRWI40R.5SDS94D8EFFA@bobo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRm+Z613bHt2d=N1yWJAiDiQVXkh0dN8z02yA_JS-rew@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri Jan 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM AEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:20 PM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually what we'd really want is an arch specific implementation of
> > lockref.
>
> The problem is mainly that then you need to generate the asm versions
> of all those different CMPXCHG_LOOP()  variants.
>
> They are all fairly simple, though, and it woudln't be hard to make
> the current lib/lockref.c just be the generic fallback if you don't
> have an arch-specific one.

Yeah, it doesn't look too onerous so it's probably worth seeing what
the code and some numbers look like here.

> And even if you do have the arch-specific LL/SC version, you'd still
> want the generic fallback for the case where a spinlock isn't a single
> word any more (which happens when the spinlock debugging options are
> on).

You're right, good point.

Thanks,
Nick

  reply	other threads:[~2023-01-13  5:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-12 23:36 lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:30   ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:45     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  7:55     ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49       ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04           ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05       ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24           ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15  0:27               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04                 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16  9:42                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16  9:40               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32           ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  1:12   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  4:08     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  9:46     ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  3:20   ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  4:15     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  5:36       ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2023-01-16 14:08     ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09       ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18  9:05       ` David Howells
2023-01-19  1:41         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44   ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31       ` Linus Torvalds

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=CPQTHRRWI40R.5SDS94D8EFFA@bobo \
    --to=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).