From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
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 15:03:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C5C86CD.2000109@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C5C7A0A.9080107@zytor.com>
On 08/06/2010 02:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/06/2010 01:33 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 08/06/2010 01:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2010 07:53 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>> On 08/06/2010 05:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A call/return to an actual out-of-line function is a barrier (and will
>>> always be a barrier, as it is the fundamental ABI sequence points),
>>> but to an inline function it is not.
>>
>> Yes. So the goto explicitly puts the barrier into the control flow which
>> should stop the compiler from doing anything unexpected.
>>
>
> In this particular case, though, I would somewhat expect the more
> conventional:
>
> while (inc.tickets.head != inc.tickets.tail) {
> cpu_relax();
> inc.tickets.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets_head);
> }
Yes, that makes sense for the plain spinlock version. But the full
code, including the pv-ticketlock spin timeout, ends up being:
static __always_inline void arch_spin_lock(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
{
register struct __raw_tickets inc;
inc = __ticket_spin_claim(lock);
for (;;) {
unsigned count = SPIN_THRESHOLD;
do {
if (inc.head == inc.tail)
goto out;
cpu_relax();
inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
} while (--count);
__ticket_lock_spinning(lock, inc.tail);
}
out: barrier(); /* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is taken */
}
So the goto form is closer to the final form. If it weren't for this,
I'd also prefer the while() form.
(If you config PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=n, then __ticket_lock_spinning()
becomes an empty inline, which causes gcc to collapse the whole thing
into a simple infinite loop (ie, it eliminates "count" and the inner loop).)
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-06 22:03 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 07/12] x86/spinlocks: replace pv spinlocks with pv ticketlocks 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 11/12] x86/pvticketlock: use callee-save for lock_spinning 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 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
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 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
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 [this message]
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 04/12] x86/ticketlock: make large and small ticket versions of spin_lock the same Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-17 1:03 ` [PATCH RFC 12/12] x86/pvticketlock: use callee-save for unlock_kick as well 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=4C5C86CD.2000109@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--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).