[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 21:26:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, corbet@....net,
mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, waiman.long@....com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:37:26PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond) do { \
> > + while (!(cond)) \
> > + cpu_relax(); \
> > + smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
> > +} while (0)
> > + smp_cond_acquire(!((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
>
> I think we spoke about this before, but what would work really well for
> arm64 here is if we could override smp_cond_acquire in such a way that
> the atomic_read could be performed explicitly in the macro. That would
> allow us to use an LDXR to set the exclusive monitor, which in turn
> means we can issue a WFE and get a cheap wakeup when lock->val is
> actually modified.
>
> With the current scheme, there's not enough information expressed in the
> "cond" parameter to perform this optimisation.
Right, but I'm having a hard time constructing something pretty that can
do that. Lambda functions would be lovely, but we don't have those :/
While we can easily pass a pointer to an arbitrary type, we need
an expression to evaluate the result of the pointer load to act as our
condition.
smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
[](int val){ return !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK); });
Would be nice, but alas.
The best we can do is hardcode a variable name; maybe something like:
#define smp_cond_acquire(ptr, expr) do { \
typeof(*ptr) val; \
while ((val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)), expr) \
cpu_relax(); \
smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
} while (0)
Which would let us write:
smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
Thoughts?
--
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