From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<x86@kernel.org>, <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:28:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <576408F7.8020901@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160617011155.GA14591@linux-80c1.suse>
On 06/16/2016 09:11 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a
>> variables with the osq_lock.
>
> So one problem I have with all this is that if we are hardening
> osq_lock/unlock()
> because of some future use that is specific to rwsems, then we will
> immediately
> be hurting mutexes for no good reason.
>
I am going to change it to use smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() as
suggested by PeterZ. Is that a good enough compromise? I have also
changed the xchg in the unlock side to xchg_release which could help
performance in some archs. The thing is when developers see the name
osq_lock/osq_unlock, they will naturally assume the proper barrriers are
provided which is not currently the case.
Anyway, the change won't affect x86, it is probably ARM or PPC that may
have an impact.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-17 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-14 22:48 [RFC PATCH-tip v2 0/6] locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic spinning Waiman Long
2016-06-14 22:48 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier Waiman Long
2016-06-15 8:04 ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-15 17:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 19:01 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-16 2:19 ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-16 10:16 ` Will Deacon
2016-06-16 21:35 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-17 0:48 ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-17 15:26 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-17 15:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-06-17 18:17 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-18 8:46 ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-20 7:59 ` Will Deacon
2016-06-15 16:56 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-15 17:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 18:27 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-15 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 18:56 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-17 1:11 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-17 14:28 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2016-06-17 16:29 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-17 16:46 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-15 19:08 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-15 20:04 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-15 21:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 22:48 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v2 2/6] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Waiman Long
2016-06-15 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 19:17 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-16 2:14 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-16 21:25 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 22:48 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v2 3/6] locking/rwsem: Enable count-based spinning on reader Waiman Long
2016-06-15 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 19:28 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 22:48 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v2 4/6] locking/rwsem: move down rwsem_down_read_failed function Waiman Long
2016-06-15 17:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 19:21 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 22:48 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v2 5/6] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS for better disambiguation Waiman Long
2016-06-15 17:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 19:31 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-15 21:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 17:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 19:35 ` Waiman Long
2016-06-14 22:48 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v2 6/6] locking/rwsem: Enable spinning readers Waiman Long
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=576408F7.8020901@hpe.com \
--to=waiman.long@hpe.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=doug.hatch@hpe.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hpe.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).