From: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:26:01 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103241026.01624.knikanth@suse.de> (raw)
On x86_64 SMP with lots of CPU atomic instructions which assert the LOCK #
signal can stall other CPUs. And as the number of cores increase this penalty
scales proportionately. So it is best to try and avoid atomic instructions
wherever possible. test_and_set_bit_lock() can avoid using LOCK_PREFIX if it
finds the bit set already.
Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
index 903683b..26a42ff 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -203,19 +203,6 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
}
/**
- * test_and_set_bit_lock - Set a bit and return its old value for lock
- * @nr: Bit to set
- * @addr: Address to count from
- *
- * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86.
- */
-static __always_inline int
-test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
-{
- return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
-}
-
-/**
* __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
* @nr: Bit to set
* @addr: Address to count from
@@ -339,6 +326,25 @@ static int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr);
: variable_test_bit((nr), (addr)))
/**
+ * test_and_set_bit_lock - Set a bit and return its old value for lock
+ * @nr: Bit to set
+ * @addr: Address to count from
+ *
+ * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86. But atomic operation is
+ * avoided, if the bit was already set.
+ */
+static __always_inline int
+test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ barrier();
+ if (test_bit(nr, addr))
+ return 1;
+#endif
+ return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
+}
+
+/**
* __ffs - find first set bit in word
* @word: The word to search
*
next reply other threads:[~2011-03-24 4:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-24 4:56 Nikanth Karthikesan [this message]
2011-03-24 8:52 ` [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible Jan Beulich
2011-03-24 8:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-24 14:52 ` Borislav Petkov
2011-03-24 16:48 ` Jan Beulich
2011-03-24 17:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 10:06 ` Jan Beulich
2011-03-25 11:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 12:04 ` Nikanth Karthikesan
2011-03-25 13:12 ` Jack Steiner
2011-03-25 16:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-25 16:47 ` Jan Beulich
2011-03-25 16:49 ` Jack Steiner
2011-03-24 17:30 ` Jack Steiner
2011-03-24 20:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-24 20:40 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-24 20:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-24 21:37 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-24 20:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-24 20:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-24 21:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-24 21:42 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-24 23:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-24 23:56 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-25 5:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-25 9:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 9:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-25 9:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 10:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2011-03-25 11:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-25 11:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 16:16 ` Robert Richter
2011-03-25 17:22 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-25 19:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 9:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-25 20:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-26 8:15 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-03-26 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-26 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-25 16:08 ` Robert Richter
2011-03-25 19:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 17:15 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-25 19:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 9:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-24 17:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-24 17:13 ` Jack Steiner
2011-03-24 18:38 ` 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=201103241026.01624.knikanth@suse.de \
--to=knikanth@suse.de \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
--cc=steiner@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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