[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289852088.2109.553.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:14:48 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: ticket lock rewrite and paravirtualization
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 12:03 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 12:00 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> > Another approach I discussed with PeterZ and Mathieu is to steal the LSB
> > of the ticket counters (halving the max CPU count) to use as a "there is
> > someone in slowpath waiting on this lock". But I haven't spent the time
> > to work out an algorithm to maintain that flag (or flags, since there
> > are bits available) in a correct and efficient way.
> >
>
> Definitely worth pondering.
Right, so the idea was to make the ticket increment 2, which would leave
the LSB of both the head and tail available. I think that if one were to
set both (using a cmpxchg), the ticket fast-path wouldn't need any
changes since head==tail is still the correct condition for acquisition.
Then the unlock needs an added conditional:
if (tail & 1)
unlock_slowpath()
--
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