From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.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: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:49:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181105224654.GA25864@brain-police> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181030060441.16107-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
[+PeterZ -- please include him on stuff like this]
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.
> diff --git a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> index bbc4730a6505..d5f922b5ffd9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> @@ -15,22 +15,19 @@
> */
> static inline void bit_spin_lock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
> {
> - /*
> - * Assuming the lock is uncontended, this never enters
> - * the body of the outer loop. If it is contended, then
> - * within the inner loop a non-atomic test is used to
> - * busywait with less bus contention for a good time to
> - * attempt to acquire the lock bit.
> - */
> - preempt_disable();
> #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));
> + const unsigned int bitshift = bitnum & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1);
> +
> + while (1) {
> + smp_cond_load_relaxed(&addr[BIT_WORD(bitnum)],
> + !((VAL >> bitshift) & 1));
> preempt_disable();
> + if (!test_and_set_bit_lock(bitnum, addr))
> + break;
> + preempt_enable();
> }
> +#else
> + preempt_disable();
This appears to introduce a bunch of overhead for the uncontended fastpath.
How about the much-simpler-but-completely-untested (tm) patch below?
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:[~2018-11-05 22:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-13 6:47 [RFC PATCH] " 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 [this message]
2018-11-06 1:45 ` Gao Xiang
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=20181105224654.GA25864@brain-police \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=gaoxiang25@huawei.com \
--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 \
/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®