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 S1756754AbeDZPxw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:53:52 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:46388 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756589AbeDZPxv (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:53:51 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:53:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        longman@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg
 loop from locking slowpath
Message-ID: <20180426155335.GL4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1524738868-31318-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1524738868-31318-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1524738868-31318-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:34:19AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> @@ -290,58 +312,50 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> +	 * If we observe any contention; queue.
> +	 */
> +	if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)
> +		goto queue;
> +
> +	/*
>  	 * trylock || pending
>  	 *
>  	 * 0,0,0 -> 0,0,1 ; trylock
>  	 * 0,0,1 -> 0,1,1 ; pending
>  	 */
> +	val = atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
> +	if (!(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
>  		/*
> +		 * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
> +		 *
> +		 * *,1,1 -> *,1,0

Tail must be 0 here, right?

> +		 *
> +		 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
> +		 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
> +		 * sequentiality; this is because not all
> +		 * clear_pending_set_locked() implementations imply full
> +		 * barriers.
>  		 */
> +		if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK) {
> +			smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
> +					      !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
> +		}
>  
>  		/*
> +		 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
> +		 *
> +		 * *,1,0 -> *,0,1
>  		 */

Idem.

> +		clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
>  		return;
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
> +	 * If pending was clear but there are waiters in the queue, then
> +	 * we need to undo our setting of pending before we queue ourselves.
>  	 */
> +	if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
> +		clear_pending(lock);

This is the branch for when we have !0 tail.

>  
>  	/*
>  	 * End of pending bit optimistic spinning and beginning of MCS

> @@ -445,15 +459,15 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>  	 * claim the lock:
>  	 *
>  	 * n,0,0 -> 0,0,1 : lock, uncontended
> +	 * *,*,0 -> *,*,1 : lock, contended
>  	 *
> +	 * If the queue head is the only one in the queue (lock value == tail)
> +	 * and nobody is pending, clear the tail code and grab the lock.
> +	 * Otherwise, we only need to grab the lock.
>  	 */
>  	for (;;) {
>  		/* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */
> +		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail || (val & _Q_PENDING_MASK)) {
>  			set_locked(lock);
>  			break;
>  		}

This one hunk is terrible on the brain. I'm fairly sure I get it, but I
feel that comment can use help. Or at least, I need help reading it.

I'll try and cook up something when my brain starts working again.