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()
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 10:35:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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?

Interestingly enough, the arm64 and powerpc implementations of
spin_unlock_wait() were very close to what it sounds like you are
describing.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-08 13:41    [W:0.099 / U:5.612 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site