xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/12] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:43:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C5C1F80020000780000EA6D@vpn.id2.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C56E1A1.6020005@goop.org>

>>> On 02.08.10 at 17:17, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 08:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 18:03 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> +       asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
>>> +                     : "+Q" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock) : : "memory", "cc");
>>   "+Q" (inc->slock)
>>
>>> +       for (;;) {
>>> +               if (inc.tickets.head == inc.tickets.tail)
>>> +                       return;
>>> +               cpu_relax();
>>> +               inc.tickets.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
>>> +       }
>>> +       barrier();              /* make sure nothing creeps before the lock 
> is taken */
>>>   }
>> How will it ever get to that barrier() ?
> 
> The compiler treats this as being:

You certainly mean "the compiler currently treats this as being:" - I
don't think there's a guarantee it'll always be doing so.

> 	for (;;) {
> 		if (inc.tickets.head == inc.tickets.tail)
> 			goto out;
> 		...
> 	}
> out:	barrier();
> }
> 
> (Which would probably be a reasonable way to clarify the code.)

I therefore think it needs to be written this way.

Jan

  reply	other threads:[~2010-08-06 12:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-17  1:03 [PATCH RFC 00/12] X86 ticket lock cleanups and improvements Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 05/12] x86/ticketlock: make __ticket_spin_lock common Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 07/12] x86/spinlocks: replace pv spinlocks with pv ticketlocks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 09/12] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for PV ticket locks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-09-26 11:39   ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-09-26 22:34     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-01-18 16:27       ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2011-01-19  1:28         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 02/12] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-02 15:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-02 15:17     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-06 12:43       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2010-08-06 14:53         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-06 20:17           ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-08-06 20:33             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-06 21:09               ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-08-06 22:03                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 04/12] x86/ticketlock: make large and small ticket versions of spin_lock the same Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 06/12] x86/ticketlock: make __ticket_spin_trylock common Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 10/12] x86/pvticketlock: keep count of blocked cpus Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-03  8:32   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-03  9:44     ` Nick Piggin
2010-08-03 15:45     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 12/12] x86/pvticketlock: use callee-save for unlock_kick as well Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 11/12] x86/pvticketlock: use callee-save for lock_spinning Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 03/12] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_unlock Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-20 15:38   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2010-07-20 16:17     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-06 17:47       ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-08-06 20:03         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 08/12] x86/ticketlock: collapse a layer of functions Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17  1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 01/12] x86/ticketlock: clean up types and accessors Jeremy Fitzhardinge
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-07-03  0:06 [PATCH RFC 02/12] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C Jeremy Fitzhardinge

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=4C5C1F80020000780000EA6D@vpn.id2.novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).