lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>-static inline bool virt_queued_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>+static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)

Given that we fall back to the cmpxchg loop even when PARAVIRT is not in the
picture, I believe this function is horribly misnamed.

> {
> if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> return false;
>
>- while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0)
>- cpu_relax();
>+ /*
>+ * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>+ * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>+ * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>+ */
>+

This comment is also misleading... but if you tuck the whole function
under some PARAVIRT option, it obviously makes sense to just leave as is.
And let native actually _use_ qspinlocks.

>+ do {
>+ while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>+ cpu_relax();
>+ } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);

CCAS to the rescue again.

Thanks,
Davidlohr


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-07 02:21    [W:1.374 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site