From: Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: guoren@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
openrisc@lists.librecores.org, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenRISC] [PATCH v6 1/9] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 08:52:08 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210406235208.GG3288043@lianli.shorne-pla.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YGyRrBjomDCPOBUd@boqun-archlinux>
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 12:51:56AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:30:32PM +0000, guoren@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
> >
> > Some architectures don't have sub-word swap atomic instruction,
> > they only have the full word's one.
> >
> > The sub-word swap only improve the performance when:
> > NR_CPUS < 16K
> > * 0- 7: locked byte
> > * 8: pending
> > * 9-15: not used
> > * 16-17: tail index
> > * 18-31: tail cpu (+1)
> >
> > The 9-15 bits are wasted to use xchg16 in xchg_tail.
> >
> > Please let architecture select xchg16/xchg32 to implement
> > xchg_tail.
> >
>
> If the architecture doesn't have sub-word swap atomic, won't it generate
> the same/similar code no matter which version xchg_tail() is used? That
> is even CONFIG_ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32=y, xchg_tail() acts
> similar to an xchg16() implemented by cmpxchg(), which means we still
> don't have forward progress guarantee. So this configuration doesn't
> solve the problem.
>
> I think it's OK to introduce this config and don't provide xchg16() for
> risc-v. But I don't see the point of converting other architectures to
> use it.
Hello,
For OpenRISC I did ack the patch to convert to
CONFIG_ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32=y. But I think you are right, the
generic code in xchg_tail and the xchg16 emulation code in produced by OpenRISC
using xchg32 would produce very similar code. I have not compared instructions,
but it does seem like duplicate functionality.
Why doesn't RISC-V add the xchg16 emulation code similar to OpenRISC? For
OpenRISC we added xchg16 and xchg8 emulation code to enable qspinlocks. So
one thought is with CONFIG_ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32=y, can we remove our
xchg16/xchg8 emulation code?
-Stafford
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 23:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-31 14:30 [PATCH v6 0/9] riscv: Add qspinlock/qrwlock guoren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 1/9] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32 guoren
2021-04-06 16:51 ` Boqun Feng
2021-04-06 23:52 ` Stafford Horne [this message]
2021-04-07 9:47 ` [OpenRISC] " Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 20:12 ` Stafford Horne
2021-04-08 19:00 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 2/9] riscv: Convert custom spinlock/rwlock to generic qspinlock/qrwlock guoren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 3/9] riscv: locks: Introduce ticket-based spinlock implementation guoren
2021-04-05 5:54 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-11 16:02 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-11 16:51 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 4/9] csky: locks: Optimize coding convention guoren
2021-04-11 16:01 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 5/9] csky: Convert custom spinlock/rwlock to generic qspinlock/qrwlock guoren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 6/9] openrisc: qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32 guoren
2021-04-06 8:56 ` Stafford Horne
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 7/9] sparc: " guoren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 8/9] xtensa: " guoren
2021-03-31 14:30 ` [PATCH v6 9/9] powerpc/qspinlock: " guoren
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=20210406235208.GG3288043@lianli.shorne-pla.net \
--to=shorne@gmail.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=guoren@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-csky@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=openrisc@lists.librecores.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will@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).