[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <573FDD7C.8080102@hpe.com>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 00:01:00 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
<mingo@...nel.org>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<ggherdovich@...e.com>, <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks
On 05/20/2016 08:59 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> >Similarly, and I know you hate it, but afaict, then semantically
>>> >queued_spin_is_contended() ought to be:
>>> >
>>> >- return atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK;
>>> >+ return atomic_read(&lock->val);
>>> >
>>
>>> Looking for contended lock, you need to consider the lock waiters
>>> also. So
>>> looking at the whole word is right.
>>
>> No, you _only_ need to look at the lock waiters.
>
> Is there anyway to do this in a single atomic_read? My thought is that
> otherwise
> we could further expand the race window of when the lock is and isn't
> contended (as returned to by the user). Ie avoiding crap like:
>
> atomic_read(&lock->val) && atomic_read(&lock->val) != _Q_LOCKED_VAL
>
> In any case, falsely returning for the 'locked, uncontended' case, vs
> completely
> ignoring waiters is probably the lesser evil :).
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
The existing code is doing that, but I would argue that including the
locked, but uncontended case isn't a bad idea.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists