lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH v5] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some archs
From
Date
On 08/14/2017 08:01 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:06:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:18:30PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2017 12:22 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2017 12:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> Might as well do an explicit:
>>>>>
>>>>> smp_mb__before_atomic()
>>>>> cmpxchg_relaxed()
>>>>> smp_mb__after_atomic()
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose and not introduce new primitives.
>>> I think we don't need smp_mb__after_atomic(). The read has to be fully
>>> ordered, but the write part may not need it as the control dependency of
>>> the old value should guard against incorrect action. Right?
>> You'd think that, but IIRC there was something funny about using the SC
>> return flag for control dependencies. Will?
> Yeah, that's right, you can't use the STXR status flag to create control
> dependencies.
>
> Will

Actually, the code sequence that I plan to use are:

smp_mb__before_atomic();
if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed)
!= vcpu_halted)
return;

WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
(void)pv_hash(lock, pn);

I am planning to use the comparison of the returned value (pn->state)
again vcpu_halted as the control dependency. I don't see how the status
flag of STXR is affecting this.

Cheers,
Longman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-14 17:02    [W:0.088 / U:1.236 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site