[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:02:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] srcu: Allow use of Tiny/Tree SRCU
from both process and interrupt context
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 06/06/2017 12:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 03:09:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> There would be a slowdown if 1) fast this_cpu_inc is not available and
> >> cannot be implemented (this usually means that atomic_inc has implicit
> >> memory barriers),
> >
> > I don't get this.
> >
> > How is per-cpu crud related to being strongly ordered?
> >
> > this_cpu_ has 3 forms:
> >
> > x86: single instruction
> > arm64,s390: preempt_disable()+atomic_op
> > generic: local_irq_save()+normal_op
> >
> > Only s390 is TSO, arm64 is very much a weak arch.
>
> Right, and thus arm64 can implement a fast this_cpu_inc using LL/SC.
> s390 cannot because its atomic_inc has implicit memory barriers.
I'm not sure the ordering makes a useful differentiator between a fast
and non-fast this_cpu implementation.
For TSO archs making their atomic primitives fully ordered isn't _that_
much of a burden over their normal ordering requirements. And LL/SC
archs can have very slow (weak) atomics (PPC for example).
(Now theoretically a TSO arch could have weak(er) atomics, but I'm not
aware of any that do this).
I realize we're splitting hairs and slightly off topic :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists