From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/19] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:27:16 +0200
Message-ID: <20140418082716.GZ11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1397747051-15401-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	<1397747051-15401-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	<20140417155649.GR11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<53504BB3.4010009@hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53504BB3.4010009@hp.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>, x86@kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:46:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/17/2014 11:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>+struct __qspinlock {
> >>+	union {
> >>+		atomic_t val;

		char bytes[4];

> >>+		struct {
> >>+#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> >>+			u16	locked_pending;
> >>+			u16	tail;
> >>+#else
> >>+			u16	tail;
> >>+			u16	locked_pending;
> >>+#endif
> >>+		};

		struct {
#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
			u8	locked;
#else
			u8	res[3];
			u8	locked;
#endif
		};

> >>+	};
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+/**
> >>+ * clear_pending_set_locked - take ownership and clear the pending bit.
> >>+ * @lock: Pointer to queue spinlock structure
> >>+ * @val : Current value of the queue spinlock 32-bit word
> >>+ *
> >>+ * *,1,0 ->  *,0,1
> >>+ */
> >>+static __always_inline void
> >>+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> >>+{
> >>+	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
> >>+
> >>+	ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1;
> >You lost the __constant_le16_to_cpu(_Q_LOCKED_VAL) there. The
> >unconditional 1 is wrong. You also have to flip the bytes in
> >locked_pending.
> 
> I don't think that is wrong. The lock byte is in the least significant 8
> bits and the pending byte is the next higher significant 8 bits irrespective
> of the endian-ness. So a value of 1 in a 16-bit context means the lock byte
> is set, but the pending byte is cleared. The name "locked_pending" doesn't
> mean that locked variable is in a lower address than pending.

val            is LE bytes[0,1,2,3] BE [3,2,1,0]
locked_pending is LE bytes[0,1]     BE     [1,0]
locked            LE bytes[0]       BE       [0]

That does mean that the LSB of BE locked_pending is bytes[1].
So if you do BE: locked_pending = 1, you set bytes[1], not bytes[0].