[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1437961615.25997.36.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:46:55 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
_Q_SLOW_VAL
On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 15:31 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:12 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > The smp_store_release() is not a full barrier. In order to avoid missed
> > wakeup, we may need to add memory barrier around locked and cpu state
> > variables adding to complexity. As the chance of spurious wakeup is very
> > low, it is easier and safer to just do an unconditional kick at unlock
> > time.
>
> Although I guess if SPIN_THRESHOLD is ever enlarged, the chances of
> spurious wakeups would be greater.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Thinking about this some more, as good practice, could you please add a
comment in the code explicitly mentioning the spurious wakeup side
effect? Perhaps even having something more generic for the entire kernel
might be added/created to Documentation/spurious-wakeups.txt?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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