From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/19] qspinlock: Extract out the exchange of tail code word Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:15:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20140418081517.GY11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1397747051-15401-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1397747051-15401-5-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20140417154902.GO11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53504771.9070102@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53504771.9070102@hp.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Waiman Long Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel , Raghavendra K T , Gleb Natapov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Scott J Norton , x86@kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar , Chegu Vinod , David Vrabel , "H. Peter Anvin" , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:28:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 04/17/2014 11:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:56AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>@@ -192,36 +220,25 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) > >> node->next = NULL; > >> > >> /* > >>+ * We touched a (possibly) cold cacheline; attempt the trylock once > >>+ * more in the hope someone let go while we weren't watching as long > >>+ * as no one was queuing. > >> */ > >>+ if (!(val& _Q_TAIL_MASK)&& queue_spin_trylock(lock)) > >>+ goto release; > >But you just did a potentially very expensive op; @val isn't > >representative anymore! > > That is not true. I pass in a pointer to val to trylock_pending() (the > pointer thing) so that it will store the latest value that it reads from the > lock back into val. I did miss one in the PV qspinlock exit loop. I will add > it back when I do the next version. But you did that read _before_ you touched a cold cacheline, that's 100s of cycles. Whatever value you read back then is now complete nonsense.