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;
}
next prev parent 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