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 04:46:36PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:44:43AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:24:53PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:04:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 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().
> > >
> > > ... or we upgrade spin_unlock_wait to a LOCK operation, which might be
> > > slightly cheaper than spin_lock()+spin_unlock().
> >
> > Or we supply a heavyweight version of spin_unlock_wait() that forces
> > the cache miss. But I bet that the difference in overhead between
> > spin_lock()+spin_unlock() and the heavyweight version would be down in
> > the noise.
>
> I'm not so sure. If the lock is ticket-based, then spin_lock() has to
> queue for its turn, whereas spin_unlock_wait could just wait for the
> next unlock.

Fair point, and it actually applies to high-contention spinlocks as well,
just a bit less deterministically. OK, given that I believe that we do
see high contention on the lock in question, I withdraw any objections
to a heavy-weight form of spin_unlock_wait().

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-16 18:21    [W:0.068 / U:8.956 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site