lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:56:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:21:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Now, the point of spin_unlock_wait() (and "spin_is_locked()") should
> > generally be that you have some external ordering guarantee that
> > guarantees that the lock has been taken. For example, for the IPC
> > semaphores, we do either one of:
> >
> > (a) get large lock, then - once you hold that lock - wait for each small lock
> >
> > or
> >
> > (b) get small lock, then - once you hold that lock - check that the
> > largo lock is unlocked
> >
> > and that's the case we should really worry about. The other uses of
> > spin_unlock_wait() should have similar "I have other reasons to know
> > I've seen that the lock was taken, or will never be taken after this
> > because XYZ".
>
> I don't think this is true for the usage in do_exit(), we have no
> knowledge on if pi_lock is taken or not. We just want to make sure that
> _if_ it were taken, we wait until it is released.

And unless PPC would move to using RCsc locks with a SYNC in
spin_lock(), I don't think it makes sense to add
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() to all tsk->pi_lock instances to fix this.
As that is far more expensive than flipping the exit path to do
spin_lock()+spin_unlock().


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-16 17:21    [W:0.092 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site