[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151105164951.GI3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:49:51 +0100
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 tip/locking/core v9 2/6] locking/qspinlock: prefetch next
node cacheline
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:42:27AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> If we observe next, we will observe val != tail sooner or later. It is not
> possible for it to clear the tail code in the lock. The tail xchg will
> guarantee that.
>
> Another alternative is to do something like
>
> + if (!next)
> while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
> cpu_relax();
>
Yes maybe, although the main reason I fell over this was because it was
a separate change (and not mentioned in the Changelog).
Although the above would need braces (per CodingStyle), so:
if (!next) {
while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
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