Re: [PATCH v11 06/16] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit path

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.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>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/16] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit path
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:26:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140611102606.GK3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401464642-33890-7-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c |   18 ++++++++++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index fc7fd8c..7f10758 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -233,11 +233,25 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>  	 */
>  	for (;;) {
>  		/*
> -		 * If we observe any contention; queue.
> +		 * If we observe that the queue is not empty or both
> +		 * the pending and lock bits are set, queue
>  		 */
> -		if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)
> +		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) ||
> +		    (val == (_Q_LOCKED_VAL|_Q_PENDING_VAL)))
>  			goto queue;
>  
> +		if (val == _Q_PENDING_VAL) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Pending bit is set, but not the lock bit.
> +			 * Assuming that the pending bit holder is going to
> +			 * set the lock bit and clear the pending bit soon,
> +			 * it is better to wait than to exit at this point.
> +			 */
> +			cpu_relax();
> +			val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
>  		new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>  		if (val == new)
>  			new |= _Q_PENDING_VAL;


So, again, you just posted a new version without replying to the
previous discussion; so let me try again, what's wrong with the proposal
here:

  lkml.kernel.org/r/20140417163640.GT11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization