[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615171250.GO30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:12:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper
acquire/release barrier
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:56:59AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
> >+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> >@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> > * cmpxchg in an attempt to undo our queueing.
> > */
> >
> >- while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) {
> >+ while (!smp_load_acquire(&node->locked)) {
>
> Hmm this being a polling path, that barrier can get pretty expensive and
> last I checked it was unnecessary:
I think he'll go rely on it later on.
In any case, its fairly simple to cure, just add
smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() at the end. If we bail because
need_resched() we don't need the acquire I think.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists