[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d03f319a-790c-3084-2908-76f44d3f41f5@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:21 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 17/19] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64
On 6/4/19 5:45 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:59:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> With separate count and owner, there are timing windows where the two
>> values are inconsistent. That can cause problem when trying to figure
>> out the exact state of the rwsem. For instance, a RT task will stop
>> optimistic spinning if the lock is acquired by a writer but the owner
>> field isn't set yet. That can be solved by combining the count and
>> owner together in a single atomic value.
> I just realized we can use cmpxchg_double() here (where available of
> course).
Does the 2 doubles need to be 128-bit aligned to use cmpxchg_double()? I
don't think we can guarantee that unless we explicitly set this alignment.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists