[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:58:38 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, shai@...lemp.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, ido@...ery.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/mm] x86/pat: Avoid contention on cpa_lock if possible
On 06/06/2012 10:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:18 -0700, tip-bot for Shai Fultheim wrote:
>
>> [ I absolutely hate these locking patterns ... yet I have no better idea. Maybe the gents on Cc: ... ]
>> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>
> Oh yuck, this is vile..
>
> static struct static_key scale_mp_trainwreck = STATIC_KEY_INIT_FALSE;
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(_cpa_lock);
>
> static inline void cpa_lock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> static inline void cpa_unlock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> And then use cpa_{,un}lock(), and the scale-mp guys can
> static_key_slow_inc(&scale_mp_trainwreck).
>
Actually, for this particular subcase I would use a synthetic CPUID bit
and use static_cpu_has().
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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