From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <duwe@lst.de>
Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ECC52C009F
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri,  7 Feb 2014 22:49:56 +1100 (EST)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:49:49 +0100
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert powerpc simple spinlocks into ticket locks
Message-ID: <20140207114949.GA2107@lst.de>
References: <20140206103736.GA18054@lst.de>
 <20140206163837.GT2936@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20140206173727.GA13048@lst.de>
 <1391717992.6733.232.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
 <20140207090248.GB26811@lst.de>
 <20140207103139.GP5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20140207104530.GG5126@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20140207104530.GG5126@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Cc: Tom Musta <tommusta@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:45:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> That might need to be lhz too, I'm confused on all the load variants.

;-)

> > unlock:
> > 	lhz	%0, 0, &tail
> > 	addic	%0, %0, 1

No carry with this one, I'd say.
Besides, unlock increments the head.

> > 	lwsync
> > 	sth	%0, 0, &tail
> > 

Given the beauty and simplicity of this, may I ask Ingo:
you signed off 314cdbefd1fd0a7acf3780e9628465b77ea6a836;
can you explain why head and tail must live on the same cache
line? Or is it just a space saver? I just ported it to ppc,
I didn't think about alternatives.

What about

atomic_t tail;
volatile int head; ?

Admittedly, that's usually 8 bytes instead of 4...

	Torsten