public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	mingo@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, corbet@lwn.net,
	mhocko@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, pjt@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 15:51:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5661FCD0.60909@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 12/03/2015 03:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:37:26PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond)	do {		\
>>> +	while (!(cond))				\
>>> +		cpu_relax();			\
>>> +	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */	\
>>> +} while (0)
>>> +	smp_cond_acquire(!((val = atomic_read(&lock->val))&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
>> I think we spoke about this before, but what would work really well for
>> arm64 here is if we could override smp_cond_acquire in such a way that
>> the atomic_read could be performed explicitly in the macro. That would
>> allow us to use an LDXR to set the exclusive monitor, which in turn
>> means we can issue a WFE and get a cheap wakeup when lock->val is
>> actually modified.
>>
>> With the current scheme, there's not enough information expressed in the
>> "cond" parameter to perform this optimisation.
> Right, but I'm having a hard time constructing something pretty that can
> do that. Lambda functions would be lovely, but we don't have those :/
>
> While we can easily pass a pointer to an arbitrary type, we need
> an expression to evaluate the result of the pointer load to act as our
> condition.
>
>    smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
> 		   [](int val){ return !(val&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK); });
>
> Would be nice, but alas.
>
> The best we can do is hardcode a variable name; maybe something like:
>
> #define smp_cond_acquire(ptr, expr) do {			\
> 	typeof(*ptr) val;					\
> 	while ((val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)), expr)			\
> 		cpu_relax();					\
> 	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */			\
> } while (0)
>
> Which would let us write:
>
>    smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(val&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
>
>
> Thoughts?
Will the following work?

#define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr, neg) ({   \
         typeof(*ptr) _val;                              \
         while (neg ((_val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)) cond_expr))\
                 cpu_relax();                            \
         smp_rmb();                                      \
         _val;                                           \
})

         val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, & 
_Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK, !);

Cheers,
Longman

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-12-04 20:51 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 [this message]
2015-12-04 22:05         ` Linus Torvalds
2015-12-04 22:48           ` Waiman Long
2015-12-04 23:43           ` Peter Zijlstra
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=5661FCD0.60909@hpe.com \
    --to=waiman.long@hpe.com \
    --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=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --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