mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:40:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E8DE7F1.3050108@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2707952.s3VYcmPHUN@chlor>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1553 bytes --]

On 10/06/2011 07:04 AM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011, 14:49:56 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Which certainly should *work*, but from a conceptual standpoint, isn't
>> it just *much* nicer to say "we actually know *exactly* what the upper
>> bits were".
> Well, we really do NOT want atomicity here. What we really rather want
> is sequentiality: free the lock, make the update visible, and THEN
> check if someone has gone sleeping on it.
>
> Atomicity only conveniently enforces that the three do not happen in a
> different order (with the store becoming visible after the checking
> load).
>
> This does not have to be atomic, since spurious wakeups are not a
> problem, in particular not with the FIFO-ness of ticket locks.
>
> For that the fence, additional atomic etc. would be IMHO much cleaner
> than the crazy overflow logic.

All things being equal I'd prefer lock-xadd just because its easier to
analyze the concurrency for, crazy overflow tests or no.  But if
add+mfence turned out to be a performance win, then that would obviously
tip the scales.

However, it looks like locked xadd is also has better performance:  on
my Sandybridge laptop (2 cores, 4 threads), the add+mfence is 20% slower
than locked xadd, so that pretty much settles it unless you think
there'd be a dramatic difference on an AMD system.

(On Nehalem it was much less dramatic 2% difference, but still in favour
of locked xadd.)

This is with dumb-as-rocks run it in a loop with "time" benchmark, but
the results are not very subtle.

    J

[-- Attachment #2: add-barrier.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 285 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>

struct {
	unsigned char flag;
	unsigned char val;
} l;

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	int i;

	for (i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
		l.val += 2;
		asm volatile("mfence" : : : "memory");
		if (l.flag)
			break;
		asm volatile("" : : : "memory");
	}

	return 0;
}

[-- Attachment #3: locked-xadd.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 422 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>

union {
	struct {
		unsigned char val;
		unsigned char flag;
	};
	unsigned short lock;
} l = { 0,0 };

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	int i;

	for (i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
		unsigned short inc = 2;
		if (l.val >= (0x100 - 2))
			inc += -1 << 8;
		asm volatile("lock; xadd %1,%0" : "+m" (l.lock), "+r" (inc) : );
		if (inc & 0x100)
			break;
		asm volatile("" : : : "memory");
	}

	return 0;
}

  reply	other threads:[~2011-10-06 17:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-09-15  0:31 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86/ticketlocks: remove obsolete comment Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 02/10] x86/spinlocks: replace pv spinlocks with pv ticketlocks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 03/10] x86/ticketlock: don't inline _spin_unlock when using paravirt spinlocks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 04/10] x86/ticketlock: collapse a layer of functions Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 05/10] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for PV ticket locks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 06/10] x86/pvticketlock: use callee-save for lock_spinning Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 07/10] x86/ticketlocks: when paravirtualizing ticket locks, increment by 2 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 08/10] x86/ticketlock: add slowpath logic Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 09/10] xen/pvticketlock: allow interrupts to be enabled while blocking Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-15  0:31 ` [PATCH 10/10] xen: enable PV ticketlocks on HVM Xen Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-27  9:34 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-09-27 16:44   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-28 13:58     ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-09-28 16:44       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-28 18:13         ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-09-28 15:38     ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 15:55       ` Jan Beulich
2011-09-28 16:10         ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 16:47           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-28 17:22             ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 17:24               ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-09-28 17:50                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-28 18:08                   ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-09-28 18:27                     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-28 18:49                     ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 19:06                       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-06 14:04                       ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-10-06 17:40                         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2011-10-06 18:09                           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-10  7:32                             ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-10 19:51                               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-10 11:00                           ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-10-10 14:01                             ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2011-10-10 19:44                               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge

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=4E8DE7F1.3050108@goop.org \
    --to=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.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

Powered by JetHome