From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
riel@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, davidlohr@hp.com,
hpa@zytor.com, andi@firstfloor.org, aswin@hp.com,
scott.norton@hp.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] locking, mutex: Cancelable MCS lock for adaptive spinning
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:04:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1392069862.2918.26.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140210213202.GX2936@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 22:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:15:59PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 20:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > +void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue **lock)
> > > +{
> > > + struct optimistic_spin_queue *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> > > + struct optimistic_spin_queue *next;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Fast path for the uncontended case.
> > > + */
> > > + if (likely(cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node))
> > > + return;
> >
> > Can we can also add the following code here as I'm noticing next != NULL
> > is the much more likely scenario on my box:
> >
> > next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
> > if (next) {
> > ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
> > return;
>
> Is adding that really much faster than the relatively straight path
> oqs_wait_next() would walk to bit the same exit?
>
> The only reason I pulled out the above cmpxchg() is because its the
> uncontended fast path, which seems like a special enough case.
So it would avoid 2 extra checks (*lock == node) and (node->next) in the
oqs_wait_next() path, which aren't necessary when node->next != NULL.
And I think node->next != NULL can be considered a special enough case
after the cmpxchg() fails because in the contended case, we're expecting
the node->next to be pointing at something. The only times node->next is
NULL after cmpxchg() fails are during a very small race window with the
osq_lock(), and when the next node is unqueuing due to need_resched,
which is also a very small window.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-10 22:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-10 19:58 [PATCH 0/8] locking/core patches Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 1/8] locking: Move mcs_spinlock.h into kernel/locking/ Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 2/8] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched() Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 21:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 3/8] mutex: Modify the way optimistic spinners are queued Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-11 1:33 ` Jason Low
2014-02-11 7:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 4/8] mutex: Unlock the mutex without the wait_lock Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 5/8] locking, mutex: Cancelable MCS lock for adaptive spinning Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 21:15 ` Jason Low
2014-02-10 21:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 22:04 ` Jason Low [this message]
2014-02-11 9:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-11 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-02-25 19:56 ` Jason Low
2014-02-26 9:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-26 17:45 ` Jason Low
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 6/8] mutex: Extra reschedule point Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 22:59 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 7/8] locking: Introduce qrwlock Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-11 18:17 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-11 20:12 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-13 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-13 17:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-14 19:01 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-14 18:48 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-10 19:58 ` [PATCH 8/8] x86,locking: Enable qrwlock Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-10 23:02 ` [PATCH 0/8] locking/core patches Andrew Morton
2014-02-11 7:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-11 8:03 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-11 8:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-02-11 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-11 21:37 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-25 19:26 ` Jason Low
2014-02-26 21:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=1392069862.2918.26.camel@j-VirtualBox \
--to=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.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