[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ada3bf4f-da8c-2ebf-15d8-f473ef1caf0c@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:07:54 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve
performance on some archs
On 01/03/2017 11:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 03:26:01PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> A number of cmpxchg calls in qspinlock_paravirt.h were replaced by more
>> relaxed versions to improve performance on architectures that use LL/SC.
> Claim without numbers ;-)
Well it is hard to produce actual numbers here as I don't have the setup
to gather data.
>> All the locking related cmpxchg's are replaced with the _acquire
>> variants:
>> - pv_queued_spin_steal_lock()
>> - trylock_clear_pending()
> So these seem to make sense in that they're in 'fast' paths..
>
>> The cmpxchg's related to hashing are replaced by either by the _release
>> or the _relaxed variants. See the inline comment for details.
>
> But these not so much, we're going to put the vcpu to sleep, why does it
> make sense to 'optimize' the wait/kick stuff?
I haven't thought too much about fast/slow paths when I was making the
patch. You are right that we properly don't need to do that for the
slowpath cases. I can modify the patch to do just the fast patch change.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists