From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: manfred@colorfullife.com, Waiman.Long@hpe.com, mingo@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ggherdovich@suse.com,
mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:25:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160520152524.GC7086@linux-uzut.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160520150505.GG3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:00:49AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:39:26PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> >> In addition, this makes me wonder if queued_spin_is_locked() should then be:
>> >>
>> >>- return atomic_read(&lock->val);
>> >>+ return atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK;
>> >>
>> >>And avoid considering pending waiters as locked.
>> >
>> >Probably
>>
>> Similarly, and I know you hate it, but afaict, then semantically
>> queued_spin_is_contended() ought to be:
>>
>> - return atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK;
>> + return atomic_read(&lock->val);
>
>Nah, that would make it return true for (0,0,1), ie. uncontended locked.
Right, and we want:
(*, 1, 1)
(*, 1, 0)
(n, 0, 0)
I may be missing some combinations, its still early.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-20 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-20 5:39 sem_lock() vs qspinlocks Davidlohr Bueso
2016-05-20 7:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 15:00 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-05-20 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 15:25 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2016-05-20 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 20:47 ` Waiman Long
2016-05-20 20:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-21 0:59 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-05-21 4:01 ` Waiman Long
2016-05-21 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 8:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 9:07 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2016-05-20 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 10:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-05-20 10:45 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-20 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 14:05 ` Boqun Feng
2016-05-20 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 16:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 17:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-20 21:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 21:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-21 0:48 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-05-21 2:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-21 7:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-21 13:49 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-05-24 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-21 17:14 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-05-23 12:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-23 17:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-25 6:37 ` Boqun Feng
2016-05-22 8:43 ` Manfred Spraul
2016-05-22 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 16:20 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-05-20 20:44 ` Waiman Long
2016-05-20 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160520152524.GC7086@linux-uzut.site \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hpe.com \
--cc=ggherdovich@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.