lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] Cancellable MCS spinlock rework
From
Date
On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 09:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 06:07:23PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 16:35 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> > > I do see a point in reducing the size of the rwsem structure. However, I
> > > don't quite understand the point of converting pointers in the
> > > optimistic_spin_queue structure to atomic_t. The structure is cacheline
> > > aligned and there is no saving in size. Converting them to atomic_t does
> > > have a bit of additional overhead of converting the encoded cpu number
> > > back to the actual pointer.
> > >
> > > So my suggestion is to just change what is stored in the mutex and rwsem
> > > structure to atomic_t, but keep the pointers in the
> > > optimistic_spin_queue structure.
> >
> > Peter, would you prefer going with the above?
> >
> > If we were to keep the pointers to the next and prev nodes in the struct
> > optimistic_spin_queue instead of converting them to atomic_t to store
> > their cpu #, we'd still need to keep track of the cpu #. In the unqueue
> > phase of osq_lock, we might have to reload prev = node->prev which we
> > then may cmpxchg() it with the lock tail.
> >
> > The method we can think of so far would be to add a regular int variable
> > to optimistic_spin_queue and initialize it to the CPU #, during the time
> > we also initialize node->locked and node->next at the beginning of
> > osq_lock. The cost wouldn't be much of an issue since
> > optimistic_spin_queue is cache aligned.
>
> Let me try and have an actual look at the patch;

Okay, I will be sending out the patchset I had so that there's something
more concrete.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-07 20:01    [W:0.104 / U:9.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site