[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1392001351.3996.16.camel@pasglop>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:02:31 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Tom Musta <tommusta@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert powerpc simple spinlocks into ticket locks
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 10:02 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > > Can you pair lwarx with sthcx ? I couldn't immediately find the answer
> > > > in the PowerISA doc. If so I think you can do better by being able to
> > > > atomically load both tickets but only storing the head without affecting
> > > > the tail.
>
> Can I simply write the half word, without a reservation, or will the HW caches
> mess up the other half? Will it ruin the cache coherency on some (sub)architectures?
Yes, you can, I *think*
> > Plus, sthcx doesn't exist on all PPC chips.
>
> Which ones are lacking it? Do all have at least a simple 16-bit store?
half word atomics (and byte atomics) are new, they've been added in architecture
2.06 I believe so it's fairly recent, but it's still worthwhile to investigate a
way to avoid atomics on unlock on recent processors (we can use instruction patching
if necessary based on CPU features) because there's definitely a significant cost
in doing a larx/stcx. sequence on powerpc, way higher than our current unlock path
of barrier + store.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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