lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait()
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:10:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:21:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > And yes, there are architecture-specific optimizations for an
> > > empty spin_lock()/spin_unlock() critical section, and the current
> > > arch_spin_unlock_wait() implementations show some of these optimizations.
> > > But I expect that performance benefits would need to be demonstrated at
> > > the system level.
> >
> > I do in fact contended there are any optimizations for the exact
> > lock+unlock semantics.
>
> You lost me on this one.
>
> > The current spin_unlock_wait() is weaker. Most notably it will not (with
> > exception of ARM64/PPC for other reasons) cause waits on other CPUs.
>
> Agreed, weaker semantics allow more optimizations. So use cases needing
> only the weaker semantics should more readily show performance benefits.
> But either way, we need compelling use cases, and I do not believe that
> any of the existing spin_unlock_wait() calls are compelling. Perhaps I
> am confused, but I am not seeing it for any of them.

If somebody really wants the full spin_unlock_wait semantics and
doesn't want to interfere with other CPUs, wouldn't synchronize_sched()
or something similar do the job? It wouldn't be as efficient as
lock+unlock, but it also wouldn't affect other CPUs.

Alan Stern

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-06 18:49    [W:0.163 / U:7.308 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site