WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 03/20] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_un

To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 03/20] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_unlock
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:38:33 -0800
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>, 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: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:42:57 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20101113100527.GG3837@hack>
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> <20101113100527.GG3837@hack>
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 11/13/2010 02:05 AM, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:59:44AM -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>  * 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");
> This 'if/else' really should be done with #ifdef, even though
> the compiler may be smart enough to remove it.

No, we depend on if/else with constant arguments doing the right thing
all over the kernel.  It is always preferable to use it instead of
#ifdef where possible, so that the two branches of code are always
subjected to compiler checking, even if they're not being used.

>> +
>> +}
>> #else
>> -# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX
>> +static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_release(struct arch_spinlock 
>> *lock)
>> +{
>> +    barrier();
>> +    lock->tickets.head++;
>> +    barrier();
> The second barrier() is not needed.

Agreed.  It gets removed in a later patch.

    J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>