[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071102000051.GB20144@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 01:00:51 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:01:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 11/01/2007 10:03 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> [edited to show the resulting code]
>
> > + __asm__ __volatile__ (
> > + LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
> > + "1:\t"
> > + "cmpb %h0, %b0\n\t"
> > + "je 2f\n\t"
> > + "rep ; nop\n\t"
> > + "movb %1, %b0\n\t"
> > + /* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
> > "jmp 1b\n"
> > + "2:"
> > + :"+Q" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock)
> > + :
> > + :"memory", "cc");
> > }
>
> If you really thought you might get long queues, you could figure out
> how far back you are and use that to determine how long to wait before
> testing the lock again. That cmpb could become a subb without adding
> overhead to the fast path -- that would give you the queue length (or
> its complement anyway.)
Indeed. You can use this as a really nice input into a backoff
algorithm (eg. if you're next in line, don't back off, or at least
don't go into exponential backoff; if you've got people in front
of you, start throttling harder).
I think I'll leave that to SGI if they come up with a big x86 SSI ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists