From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Miao Xie <miaoxie@huawei.com>,
Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:45:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e31a6864-823b-ac6e-2223-88fa3888502e@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181105224654.GA25864@brain-police>
Hi Will,
On 2018/11/6 6:49, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Gao,
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:04:41PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> It is better to use wrapped smp_cond_load_relaxed
>> instead of open-coded busy waiting for bit_spinlock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>
>> change log v2:
>> - fix the incorrect expression !(VAL >> (bitnum & (BITS_PER_LONG-1)))
>> - the test result is described in the following reply.
> Please include the results in the commit message, so that this change is
> justified.
Will add in the next version...
>
> This appears to introduce a bunch of overhead for the uncontended fastpath.
> How about the much-simpler-but-completely-untested (tm) patch below?
Actually I thought to do like the following (much simpler indeed) at first...
But the current implementation of smp_cond_load_relaxed will do a judgement immediately
which seems unnecessary (right after the test_and_set_bit_lock rather than after
__cmpwait_relaxed...)
for (;;) { \
VAL = READ_ONCE(*__PTR); \
if (cond_expr) \
break; \
__cmpwait_relaxed(__PTR, VAL); \
} \
p.s. I have no idea the original uncontended fastpath really works effectively...
some idea about this? Thanks in advance...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Will
>
> --->8
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
> index 3ae021368f48..9de8d3544630 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,15 @@
> #include <linux/compiler.h>
> #include <asm/barrier.h>
>
> +static inline void spin_until_bit_unlock(unsigned int nr,
> + volatile unsigned long *p)
> +{
> + unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(bitnum);
> +
> + p += BIT_WORD(nr);
> + smp_cond_load_relaxed(p, VAL & mask);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * test_and_set_bit_lock - Set a bit and return its old value, for lock
> * @nr: Bit to set
> diff --git a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> index bbc4730a6505..d711c62e718c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ static inline void bit_spin_lock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
> #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
> while (unlikely(test_and_set_bit_lock(bitnum, addr))) {
> preempt_enable();
> - do {
> - cpu_relax();
> - } while (test_bit(bitnum, addr));
> + spin_until_bit_unlock(bitnum, addr);
> preempt_disable();
> }
> #endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-06 1:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-13 6:47 [RFC PATCH] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed Gao Xiang
2018-10-13 7:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-10-13 7:22 ` Gao Xiang
2018-10-13 7:30 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-10-13 7:44 ` Gao Xiang
2018-10-13 7:30 ` Gao Xiang
2018-10-30 6:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Gao Xiang
2018-10-30 5:52 ` Gao Xiang
2018-11-05 17:11 ` Gao Xiang
2018-11-05 22:49 ` Will Deacon
2018-11-06 1:45 ` Gao Xiang [this message]
2018-11-06 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-06 10:22 ` Gao Xiang
2018-11-06 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-06 11:36 ` Gao Xiang
2018-11-06 12:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-06 12:33 ` Gao Xiang
2018-11-06 12:38 ` Gao Xiang
2018-11-06 12:43 ` 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=e31a6864-823b-ac6e-2223-88fa3888502e@huawei.com \
--to=gaoxiang25@huawei.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miaoxie@huawei.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pombredanne@nexb.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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).