lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait()

* Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> 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().

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.

But adding something like spin_barrier(), which purely dirties the lock cacheline,
would be even faster, right?

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-08 10:37    [W:0.115 / U:22.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site