Re: [PATCH 1/1] ppc/crash: Skip spinlocks during crash

[Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1664 bytes --]

Hello Christophe, thanks for the feedback.

I noticed an error in this patch and sent a v2, that can be seen here:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1262468/

Comments inline::

On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 07:50 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > @@ -142,6 +144,8 @@ static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >   		if (likely(__arch_spin_trylock(lock) == 0))
> >   			break;
> >   		do {
> > +			if (unlikely(crash_skip_spinlock))
> > +				return;

Complete function for reference:
static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
{
	while (1) {
		if (likely(__arch_spin_trylock(lock) == 0))
			break;
		do {
			if (unlikely(crash_skip_spinlock))
				return;
			HMT_low();
			if (is_shared_processor())
				splpar_spin_yield(lock);
		} while (unlikely(lock->slock != 0));
		HMT_medium();
	}
}

> You are adding a test that reads a global var in the middle of a so hot 
> path ? That must kill performance. 

I thought it would, in worst case scenario, increase a maximum delay of
an arch_spin_lock() call 1 spin cycle. Here is what I thought:

- If the lock is already free, it would change nothing, 
- Otherwise, the lock will wait.
- Waiting cycle just got bigger.
- Worst case scenario: running one more cycle, given lock->slock can
turn to 0 just after checking.

Could you please point where I failed to see the performance penalty?
(I need to get better at this :) )


> Can we do different ?

Sure, a less intrusive way of doing it would be to free the currently
needed locks before proceeding. I just thought it would be harder to
maintain.

> Christophe

Best regards,
Leonardo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]