lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
On 02/19/2014 03:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:58:49PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 02/18/2014 04:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:39:31PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * At the head of the wait queue now
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + while (true) {
>>>>>> + u32 qcode;
>>>>>> + int retval;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + retval = queue_get_lock_qcode(lock,&qcode, my_qcode);
>>>>>> + if (retval> 0)
>>>>>> + ; /* Lock not available yet */
>>>>>> + else if (retval< 0)
>>>>>> + /* Lock taken, can release the node& return */
>>>>>> + goto release_node;
>>>>>> + else if (qcode != my_qcode) {
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Just get the lock with other spinners waiting
>>>>>> + * in the queue.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + if (queue_spin_trylock_unfair(lock))
>>>>>> + goto notify_next;
>>>>> Why is this an option at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you referring to the case (qcode != my_qcode)? This condition will be
>>>> true if more than one tasks have queued up.
>>> But in no case should we revert to unfair spinning or stealing. We
>>> should always respect the queueing order.
>>>
>>> If the lock tail no longer points to us, then there's further waiters
>>> and we should wait for ->next and unlock it -- after we've taken the
>>> lock.
>>>
>> A task will be in this loop when it is already the head of a queue and is
>> entitled to take the lock. The condition (qcode != my_qcode) is to decide
>> whether it should just take the lock or take the lock& clear the code
>> simultaneously. I am a bit cautious to use queue_spin_trylock_unfair() as
>> there is a possibility that a CPU may run out of the queue node and need to
>> do unfair busy spinning.
> No; there is no such possibility. Add BUG_ON(idx>=4) and make sure of
> it.

Yes, I could do that.

However in the generic implementation, I still need some kind of atomic
cmpxchg to set the lock bit. I could probably just do a simple
assignment of 1 to the lock byte in x86.

> There's simply no more than 4 contexts what can nest at any one time:
>
> task context
> softirq context
> hardirq context
> nmi context
>
> And someone contending a spinlock from NMI context should be shot
> anyway.
>
> Getting more nested spinlocks is an absolute hard fail.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-19 21:21    [W:1.322 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site