Date:	Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:59:49 -0800
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Figo. zhang" <figo1802@...il.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 04:50:23AM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Nov 7, 2013 6:55 PM, "Michel Lespinasse" <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Rather than writing arch-specific locking code, would you agree to
>> >> introduce acquire and release memory operations ?
>> >
>> > Yes, that's probably the right thing to do. What ops do we need? Store with
>> > release, cmpxchg and load with acquire? Anything else?
>>
>> Depends on what lock types we want to implement on top; for MCS we would need:
>> - xchg acquire (common case) and load acquire (for spinning on our
>> locker's wait word)
>> - cmpxchg release (when there is no next locker) and store release
>> (when writing to the next locker's wait word)
>>
>> One downside of the proposal is that using a load acquire for spinning
>> puts the memory barrier within the spin loop. So this model is very
>> intuitive and does not add unnecessary barriers on x86, but it my
>> place the barriers in a suboptimal place for architectures that need
>> them.
>
> OK, I will bite...  Why is a barrier in the spinloop suboptimal?

It's probably not a big deal - all I meant to say is that if you were
manually placing barriers, you would probably put one after the loop
instead. I don't deal much with architectures where such barriers are
needed, so I don't know for sure if the difference means much.

> Can't say that I have tried measuring it, but the barrier should not
> normally result in interconnect traffic.  Given that the barrier is
> required anyway, it should not affect lock-acquisition latency.

Agree

> So what am I missing here?

I think you read my second email as me trying to shoot down a proposal
- I wasn't, as I really like the acquire/release model and find it
easy to program with, which is why I'm proposing it in the first
place. I just wanted to be upfront about all potential downsides, so
we can consider them and see if they are significant - I don't think
they are, but I'm not the best person to judge that as I mostly just
deal with x86 stuff.

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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