From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:01:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <524B2A01.4080403@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1380646092.11046.6.camel@schen9-DESK>
On 10/01/2013 12:48 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/30/2013 12:10 PM, Jason Low wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:51 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 09/28/2013 12:34 AM, Jason Low wrote:
>>>>>> Also, below is what the mcs_spin_lock() and mcs_spin_unlock()
>>>>>> functions would look like after applying the proposed changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static noinline
>>>>>> void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct mcs_spin_node *prev;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Init node */
>>>>>> node->locked = 0;
>>>>>> node->next = NULL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> prev = xchg(lock, node);
>>>>>> if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
>>>>>> /* Lock acquired. No need to set node->locked since it
>>>>>> won't be used */
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
>>>>>> /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
>>>>>> while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
>>>>>> arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
>>>>>> smp_mb();
>>>> I wonder if a memory barrier is really needed here.
>>> If the compiler can reorder the while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) check
>>> so that the check occurs after an instruction in the critical section,
>>> then the barrier may be necessary.
>>>
>> In that case, just a barrier() call should be enough.
> The cpu could still be executing out of order load instruction from the
> critical section before checking node->locked? Probably smp_mb() is
> still needed.
>
> Tim
But this is the lock function, a barrier() call should be enough to
prevent the critical section from creeping up there. We certainly need
some kind of memory barrier at the end of the unlock function.
-Longman
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-01 20:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1380144003.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] rwsem: performance optimizations Tim Chen
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] rwsem: check the lock before cpmxchg in down_write_trylock Tim Chen
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] rwsem: remove 'out' label in do_wake Tim Chen
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] rwsem: remove try_reader_grant label do_wake Tim Chen
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] rwsem/wake: check lock before do atomic update Tim Chen
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file Tim Chen
2013-09-26 6:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-26 8:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-26 9:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-26 18:18 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-26 19:27 ` Jason Low
2013-09-26 20:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-26 20:23 ` Jason Low
2013-09-26 20:40 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-26 21:09 ` Jason Low
2013-09-26 21:41 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-26 22:42 ` Jason Low
2013-09-26 22:57 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-27 6:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-27 6:26 ` Jason Low
2013-09-27 11:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 13:44 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-27 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 14:05 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-27 14:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 14:14 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Make the memory barrier test noisier Joe Perches
2013-09-27 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 14:34 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-27 14:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 15:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-09-27 15:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-09-27 23:40 ` Oliver Neukum
2013-09-28 7:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-27 16:12 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file Jason Low
2013-09-27 16:19 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 19:19 ` Waiman Long
2013-10-02 19:30 ` Jason Low
2013-10-02 19:37 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-26 22:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-27 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-09-27 18:09 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-28 2:58 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-27 19:38 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-27 20:16 ` Jason Low
2013-09-27 20:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-09-27 22:46 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-27 23:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-09-27 23:54 ` Jason Low
2013-09-28 0:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-28 2:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-09-28 4:34 ` Jason Low
2013-09-30 15:51 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-30 16:10 ` Jason Low
2013-09-30 16:36 ` Waiman Long
2013-10-01 16:48 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-01 20:01 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2013-10-01 21:16 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 1:25 ` Waiman Long
2013-10-02 18:43 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 19:32 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-30 16:28 ` Tim Chen
2013-09-25 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition Tim Chen
2013-09-26 6:53 ` Ingo Molnar
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=524B2A01.4080403@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=walken@google.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 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).