[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150914140456.GU18489@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:04:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Cc: 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>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow 1 lock stealing attempt
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:37:37PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> This patch allows one attempt for the lock waiter to steal the lock
> when entering the PV slowpath. This helps to reduce the performance
> penalty caused by lock waiter preemption while not having much of
> the downsides of a real unfair lock.
> @@ -416,7 +414,8 @@ queue:
> * does not imply a full barrier.
> *
> */
If it really were once, like the Changelog says it is, then you could
have simply added:
if (pv_try_steal_lock(...))
goto release;
here, and not wrecked pv_wait_head() like you did. Note that if you do
it like this, you also do not need to play games with the hash, because
you'll never get into that situation.
> - pv_wait_head(lock, node);
> + if (pv_wait_head_and_lock(lock, node, tail))
> + goto release;
> while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter)) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK)
> cpu_relax();
>
--
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