From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 00:43:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151204234337.GL17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzZA9EB3hFptSpdmeMOifeM5BWQGOW+ib7SLvyMTETzaA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:05:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Of course, I suspect we should not use READ_ONCE(), but some
> architecture-overridable version that just defaults to READ_ONCE().
> Same goes for that "smp_rmb()". Because maybe some architectures will
> just prefer an explicit acquire, and I suspect we do *not* want
> architectures having to recreate and override that crazy loop.
>
> How much does this all actually end up mattering, btw?
Not sure, I'll have to let Will quantify that. But the whole reason
we're having this discussion is that ARM64 has a MONITOR+MWAIT like
construct that they'd like to use to avoid the spinning.
Of course, in order to use that, they _have_ to override the crazy loop.
Now, Will and I spoke earlier today, and the version proposed by me (and
you, since that is roughly similar) will indeed work for them in that it
would allow them to rewrite the thing something like:
typeof(*ptr) VAL;
for (;;) {
VAL = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
if (expr)
break;
cmp_and_wait(ptr, VAL);
}
Where their cmd_and_wait(ptr, val) looks a little like:
asm volatile(
" ldxr %w0, %1 \n"
" sub %w0, %w0, %2 \n"
" cbnz 1f \n"
" wfe \n"
"1:"
: "=&r" (tmp)
: "Q" (*ptr), "r" (val)
);
(excuse my poor ARM asm foo)
Which sets up a load-exclusive monitor, compares if the value loaded
matches what we previously saw, and if so, wait-for-event.
WFE will wake on any event that would've also invalidated a subsequent
stxr or store-exclusive.
ARM64 also of course can choose to use load-acquire instead of the
READ_ONCE(), or still issue the smp_rmb(), dunno what is best for them.
The load-acquire would (potentially) be issued multiple times, vs the
rmb only once. I'll let Will sort that.
In any case, WFE is both better for power consumption and lowers the
cacheline pressure, ie. nobody keeps trying to pull the line into shared
state all the time while you're trying to get a store done.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-04 23:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-03 12:40 [PATCH 0/4] scheduler ordering bits -v2 Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 12:40 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched: Better document the try_to_wake_up() barriers Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 12:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: Fix a race in try_to_wake_up() vs schedule() Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 12:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 16:37 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-03 20:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 21:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-04 14:57 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-04 20:51 ` Waiman Long
2015-12-04 22:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-12-04 22:48 ` Waiman Long
2015-12-04 23:43 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-12-07 15:18 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-03 19:41 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-12-03 20:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 12:40 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-03 13:16 ` Boqun Feng
2015-12-03 13:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20151204234337.GL17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hpe.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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