From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:26:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051020232658.GA29923@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051020160115.2b34cb8e.akpm@osdl.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> > > spin_lock is still uninlined.
> >
> > yes, and that should stay so i believe, for text size reasons. The BTB
> > should eliminate most effects of the call+ret itself.
>
> The old
>
> lock; decb
> js <different section>
> ...
>
> was pretty good.
yes, but that's 4-7+6==10-13 bytes of inline footprint, compared to
fixed 5 bytes. That gives quite some icache footprint with thousands of
call sites.
> > hm, with my patch, write_unlock should be inlined too.
>
> So it is. foo_unlock_irq() isn't though.
yes, that one should probably be inlined too, it's just 1 byte longer,
still the network-effects on register allocations give a net win:
text data bss dec hex filename
4072031 858208 387196 5317435 51233b vmlinux-smp-uninlined
4060671 858212 387196 5306079 50f6df vmlinux-smp-inlined
4058543 858212 387196 5303951 50ee8f vmlinux-irqop-inlined-too
another 0.05% drop in text size. Add-on patch below, it is against -rc5
plus prev_spinlock_patch. Boot-tested on 4-way x86 SMP. The box crashed
and burned. Joking.
Ingo
include/linux/spinlock.h | 16 +++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux/include/linux/spinlock.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ linux/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -184,19 +184,29 @@ extern int __lockfunc generic__raw_read_
# define write_unlock(lock) __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock)
#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT)
+# define spin_unlock_irq(lock) _spin_unlock_irq(lock)
+# define read_unlock_irq(lock) _read_unlock_irq(lock)
+# define write_unlock_irq(lock) _write_unlock_irq(lock)
+#else
+# define spin_unlock_irq(lock) \
+ do { __raw_spin_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
+# define read_unlock_irq(lock) \
+ do { __raw_read_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
+# define write_unlock_irq(lock) \
+ do { __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
+#endif
+
#define spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags) \
_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)
-#define spin_unlock_irq(lock) _spin_unlock_irq(lock)
#define spin_unlock_bh(lock) _spin_unlock_bh(lock)
#define read_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags) \
_read_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)
-#define read_unlock_irq(lock) _read_unlock_irq(lock)
#define read_unlock_bh(lock) _read_unlock_bh(lock)
#define write_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags) \
_write_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)
-#define write_unlock_irq(lock) _write_unlock_irq(lock)
#define write_unlock_bh(lock) _write_unlock_bh(lock)
#define spin_trylock_bh(lock) __cond_lock(_spin_trylock_bh(lock))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-20 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-11 4:04 i386 spinlock fairness: bizarre test results Chuck Ebbert
2005-10-11 9:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-10-11 13:00 ` Alan Cox
2005-10-11 14:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-11 15:32 ` [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits Eric Dumazet
2005-10-11 16:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-11 16:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-10-11 16:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-11 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-17 7:03 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-17 7:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-10-20 21:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 21:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-20 22:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 22:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-20 22:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 22:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-20 22:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-20 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-20 23:26 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-10-27 16:54 ` Paul Jackson
2005-10-11 17:59 ` Andi Kleen
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=20051020232658.GA29923@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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