On 11/10/2015 11:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:09:26PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:@@ -291,7 +292,7 @@ static __always_inline void __pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock, void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) { struct mcs_spinlock *prev, *next, *node; - u32 new, old, tail; + u32 new, old, tail, locked; int idx;BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS>= (1U<< _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS)); @@ -431,11 +432,25 @@ queue: * sequentiality; this is because the set_locked() function below * does not imply a full barrier. * + * The PV pv_wait_head_or_lock function, if active, will acquire + * the lock and return a non-zero value. So we have to skip the + * smp_load_acquire() call. As the next PV queue head hasn't been + * designated yet, there is no way for the locked value to become + * _Q_SLOW_VAL. So both the set_locked() and the + * atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() calls will be safe. + * + * If PV isn't active, 0 will be returned instead. + * */ - pv_wait_head(lock, node); - while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))& _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) + locked = val = pv_wait_head_or_lock(lock, node); + if (locked) + goto reset_tail_or_wait_next; + + while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter)) + & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) cpu_relax(); +reset_tail_or_wait_next: /* * claim the lock: * @@ -447,8 +462,12 @@ queue: * to grab the lock. */ for (;;) { - if (val != tail) { - set_locked(lock); + /* + * The lock value may or may not have the _Q_LOCKED_VAL bit set. + */ + if ((val& _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail) { + if (!locked) + set_locked(lock); break; } /*How about this instead? If we've already got _Q_LOCKED_VAL set, issuing that store again isn't much of a problem, the cacheline is already hot and we own it and its a regular store not an atomic. @@ -432,10 +433,13 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qs * does not imply a full barrier. * */ - pv_wait_head(lock, node); + if ((val = pv_wait_head_or_lock(lock, node))) + goto locked; + while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))& _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) cpu_relax(); +locked: /* * claim the lock: * @@ -447,7 +451,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qs * to grab the lock. */ for (;;) { - if (val != tail) { + /* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */ + if ((val& _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail) { set_locked(lock); break; }
That is certainly fine. I was doing that originally, but then change it to add an additional if.
BTW, I have a process question. Should I just resend the patch 6 or should I resend the whole series? I do have a couple of bugs in the (_Q_PENDING_BITS != 8) part of the patch that I need to fix too.
Cheers, Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
