|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 03/20] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_un
To: |
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 03/20] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_unlock |
From: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:00:30 -0400 |
Cc: |
Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:01:49 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<1288797218.2511.143.camel@edumazet-laptop> |
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
References: |
<cover.1288794124.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <20092775a9df07a5a75820ac250194b535279d51.1288794124.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <1288797218.2511.143.camel@edumazet-laptop> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.6 |
On 11/03/2010 11:13 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 10:59 -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge a
> écrit :
>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> If we don't need to use a locked inc for unlock, then implement it in C.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> index 6711d36..082990a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> @@ -33,9 +33,23 @@
>> * On PPro SMP or if we are using OOSTORE, we use a locked operation to
>> unlock
>> * (PPro errata 66, 92)
>> */
>> -# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX LOCK_PREFIX
>> +static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_release(struct arch_spinlock
>> *lock)
>> +{
>> + if (sizeof(lock->tickets.head) == sizeof(u8))
>> + asm (LOCK_PREFIX "incb %0"
>> + : "+m" (lock->tickets.head) : : "memory");
>> + else
>> + asm (LOCK_PREFIX "incw %0"
>> + : "+m" (lock->tickets.head) : : "memory");
>> +
>> +}
>> #else
>> -# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX
>> +static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_release(struct arch_spinlock
>> *lock)
>> +{
>> + barrier();
> technically speaking, it should be : smp_wmb()
Perhaps. In practise it won't make a difference because it is defined
as barrier() unless OOSTORE is defined, in which case we need to do a
locked increment anyway.
Thanks,
J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
|
|