From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752808AbcHLRQ3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:29 -0400
Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:13886 "EHLO mga09.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752461AbcHLRQ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:28 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,511,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="154907940"
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4] x86/hpet: Reduce HPET counter read contention
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
References: <1470853770-37625-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <57ACD2DE.6080306@intel.com> <57AD0898.7030506@hpe.com>
 <57AD18D1.1050107@intel.com> <57AE00EE.8070904@hpe.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>, Randy Wright <rwright@hpe.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Message-ID: <57AE0469.10503@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:16:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57AE00EE.8070904@hpe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/12/2016 10:01 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> The reason for using a special lock is that I want both sequence number
> update and locking to be done together atomically. They can be made
> separate as is in the seqlock. However, that will make the code more
> complex to make sure that all the threads see a consistent set of lock
> state and sequence number.

Why do we need a sequence number?  The "cached" HPET itself could be used.

I'm thinking something like below could use a spinlock instead of the
doing a custom cmpxchg sequence.  The spin_is_locked() should allow the
contended "readers" to avoid using atomics.

spinlock_t hpet_lock;
u32 hpet_value;
...
{
	u32 old_hpet = READ_ONCE(hpet_value);
	u32 new_hpet;

	// need to ensure that the spin_is_locked() is ordered after
	// the READ_ONCE().
	smp_rmb();
	// spin_is_locked() doesn't do atomics
	if (!spin_is_locked(&hpet_lock) && spin_trylock(&hpet_lock)) {
		WRITE_ONCE(hpet_value, real_read_hpet());
		spin_unlock(&hpet_lock);
		return hpet_value;
	}
	// Contended case.  We spin here waiting for the guy who holds
	// the lock to write a new value to 'hpet_value'.
	//
	// We know that our old_hpet is older than our check for the
	// spinlock being locked. So, someone must either have already
	// updated it or be updating it.
	do {
		cpu_relax();
		// We do not do a rmb() here.  We don't need a guarantee
		// that this read is up-to-date, just that it will
		// _eventually_ see an up-to-date value.
		new_hpet = READ_ONCE(hpet_value);
	} while (old_hpet == new_hpet);
	return new_hpet;
}