lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH v5] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some archs
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 07:00:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > No, I meant _from_ the LL load, not _to_ a later load.
>
> Sorry, I'm still not following enough to give you a definitive answer on
> that. Could you give an example, please? These sequences usually run in
> a loop, so the conditional branch back (based on the status flag) is where
> the read-after-read comes in.
>
> Any control dependencies from the loaded data exist regardless of the status
> flag.

Basically what Waiman ended up doing, something like:

if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed) != vcpu_halted)
return;

WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);

Where the STORE depends on the LL value being 'complete'.


For any RmW we can only create a control dependency from the LOAD. The
the same could be done for something like:

if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&obj->refs))
WRITE_ONCE(obj->foo, 1);

Where we only do the STORE if we acquire the reference. While the
WRITE_ONCE() will not be ordered against the increment, it is ordered
against the LL and we know it must not be 0.

Per the LL/SC loop we'll have observed a !0 value and committed the SC
(which need not be visible or ordered against any later store) but both
STORES (SC and the WRITE_ONCE) must be after the ->refs LOAD.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-21 21:26    [W:0.070 / U:36.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site