From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966146AbbD2SLf (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:11:35 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:34258 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753809AbbD2SLb (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:11:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:11:12 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Waiman Long Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Boris Ostrovsky , "Paul E. McKenney" , Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , Raghavendra K T , David Vrabel , Oleg Nesterov , Daniel J Blueman , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 13/14] pvqspinlock: Improve slowpath performance by avoiding cmpxchg Message-ID: <20150429181112.GI23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1429901803-29771-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1429901803-29771-14-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1429901803-29771-14-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:56:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > In the pv_scan_next() function, the slow cmpxchg atomic operation is > performed even if the other CPU is not even close to being halted. This > extra cmpxchg can harm slowpath performance. > > This patch introduces the new mayhalt flag to indicate if the other > spinning CPU is close to being halted or not. The current threshold > for x86 is 2k cpu_relax() calls. If this flag is not set, the other > spinning CPU will have at least 2k more cpu_relax() calls before > it can enter the halt state. This should give enough time for the > setting of the locked flag in struct mcs_spinlock to propagate to > that CPU without using atomic op. Yuck! I'm not at all sure you can make assumptions like that. And the worst part is, if it goes wrong the borkage is subtle and painful.