[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait()
Hi Alan,

On 07/08/2017 06:21 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> Pardon me for barging in, but I found this whole interchange extremely
> confusing...
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Paul E. McKenney <> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 10:35:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Manfred Spraul <> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ingo,
>>>>> On 07/07/2017 10:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>> There's another, probably just as significant advantage: queued_spin_unlock_wait()
>>>>>> is 'read-only', while spin_lock()+spin_unlock() dirties the lock cache line. On
>>>>>> any bigger system this should make a very measurable difference - if
>>>>>> spin_unlock_wait() is ever used in a performance critical code path.
>>>>> At least for ipc/sem:
>>>>> Dirtying the cacheline (in the slow path) allows to remove a smp_mb() in the
>>>>> hot path.
>>>>> So for sem_lock(), I either need a primitive that dirties the cacheline or
>>>>> sem_lock() must continue to use spin_lock()/spin_unlock().
> This statement doesn't seem to make sense. Did Manfred mean to write
> "smp_mb()" instead of "spin_lock()/spin_unlock()"?
Option 1:
smp_mb(); [[1]]
slow path:
global_flag = 1;

Option 2:
slow path:
global_flag = 1;

The ACQUIRE from spin_lock is at the read of local_lock, not at the write.
i.e.: Without the smp_mb() at [[1]], the CPU can do:
read local_lock;
read global_flag;
write local_lock;
For Option 2, the smp_mb() is not required, because fast path and slow
path acquire the same lock.

>>>> Technically you could use spin_trylock()+spin_unlock() and avoid the lock acquire
>>>> spinning on spin_unlock() and get very close to the slow path performance of a
>>>> pure cacheline-dirtying behavior.
> This is even more confusing. Did Ingo mean to suggest using
> "spin_trylock()+spin_unlock()" in place of "spin_lock()+spin_unlock()"
> could provide the desired ordering guarantee without delaying other
> CPUs that may try to acquire the lock? That seems highly questionable.
I agree :-)


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-10 19:23    [W:0.085 / U:3.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site