From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: cw@f00f.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:50:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050117055044.GA3514@taniwha.stupidest.org> (raw)
Linus,
The change below is causing major problems for me on a dual K7 with
CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled (cset -x and rebuilding makes the machine
usable again).
This change was merged a couple of days ago so I'm surprised nobody
else has reported this. I tried to find where this patch came from
but I don't see it on lkml only the bk history.
Note, even with this removed I'm still seeing a few (many actually)
"BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000001] code: xxx"
messages which I've not seen before --- that might be unrelated but I
do see *many* such messages so I'm sure I would have noticed this
before or it would have broken something earlier.
Is this specific to the k7 or do other people also see this?
Thanks,
--cw
---
# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
# 2005/01/15 09:40:45-08:00 mingo@elte.hu
# [PATCH] Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks
#
# Paul Mackerras points out that doing the _raw_spin_trylock each time
# through the loop will generate tons of unnecessary bus traffic.
# Instead, after we fail to get the lock we should poll it with simple
# loads until we see that it is clear and then retry the atomic op.
# Assuming a reasonable cache design, the loads won't generate any bus
# traffic until another cpu writes to the cacheline containing the lock.
#
# Agreed.
#
# Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
# Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
#
# kernel/spinlock.c
# 2005/01/14 16:00:00-08:00 mingo@elte.hu +8 -6
# Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks
#
diff -Nru a/kernel/spinlock.c b/kernel/spinlock.c
--- a/kernel/spinlock.c 2005-01-16 21:43:15 -08:00
+++ b/kernel/spinlock.c 2005-01-16 21:43:15 -08:00
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@
* (We do this in a function because inlining it would be excessive.)
*/
-#define BUILD_LOCK_OPS(op, locktype) \
+#define BUILD_LOCK_OPS(op, locktype, is_locked_fn) \
void __lockfunc _##op##_lock(locktype *lock) \
{ \
preempt_disable(); \
@@ -183,7 +183,8 @@
preempt_enable(); \
if (!(lock)->break_lock) \
(lock)->break_lock = 1; \
- cpu_relax(); \
+ while (is_locked_fn(lock) && (lock)->break_lock) \
+ cpu_relax(); \
preempt_disable(); \
} \
} \
@@ -204,7 +205,8 @@
preempt_enable(); \
if (!(lock)->break_lock) \
(lock)->break_lock = 1; \
- cpu_relax(); \
+ while (is_locked_fn(lock) && (lock)->break_lock) \
+ cpu_relax(); \
preempt_disable(); \
} \
return flags; \
@@ -244,9 +246,9 @@
* _[spin|read|write]_lock_irqsave()
* _[spin|read|write]_lock_bh()
*/
-BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, spinlock_t);
-BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock_t);
-BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock_t);
+BUILD_LOCK_OPS(spin, spinlock_t, spin_is_locked);
+BUILD_LOCK_OPS(read, rwlock_t, rwlock_is_locked);
+BUILD_LOCK_OPS(write, rwlock_t, spin_is_locked);
#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT */
next reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 5:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 5:50 Chris Wedgwood [this message]
2005-01-17 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-17 7:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-17 8:00 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Grant Grundler
2005-01-17 7:38 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-17 18:53 ` Chris Wedgwood
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=20050117055044.GA3514@taniwha.stupidest.org \
--to=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®