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] [PATCH 05/14] x86/ticketlock: make __ticket_spin_lock common

To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 05/14] x86/ticketlock: make __ticket_spin_lock common
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:08:36 -0800
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:26:29 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>

Aside from the particular form of the xadd instruction, they're identical.
So factor out the xadd and use common code for the rest.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h |   42 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
index 1b81809..f722f96 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -67,13 +67,27 @@ static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_release(struct 
arch_spinlock *lock)
  * save some instructions and make the code more elegant. There really isn't
  * much between them in performance though, especially as locks are out of 
line.
  */
-#if (NR_CPUS < 256)
-static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
+static __always_inline struct __raw_tickets __ticket_spin_claim(struct 
arch_spinlock *lock)
 {
-       register struct __raw_tickets inc = { .tail = 1 };
+       register struct __raw_tickets tickets = { .tail = 1 };
+
+       if (sizeof(lock->tickets.head) == sizeof(u8))
+               asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
+                             : "+r" (tickets), "+m" (lock->tickets)
+                             : : "memory", "cc");
+       else
+               asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX "xaddl %0, %1\n"
+                            : "+r" (tickets), "+m" (lock->tickets)
+                            : : "memory", "cc");
 
-       asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
-                     : "+r" (inc), "+m" (lock->tickets) : : "memory", "cc");
+       return tickets;
+}
+
+static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
+{
+       register struct __raw_tickets inc;
+
+       inc = __ticket_spin_claim(lock);
 
        for (;;) {
                if (inc.head == inc.tail)
@@ -84,6 +98,7 @@ static __always_inline void 
__ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 out:   barrier();              /* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is 
taken */
 }
 
+#if (NR_CPUS < 256)
 static __always_inline int __ticket_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
        unsigned int tmp, new;
@@ -103,23 +118,6 @@ static __always_inline int 
__ticket_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
        return tmp;
 }
 #else
-static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
-{
-       register struct __raw_tickets inc = { .tail = 1 };
-
-       asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "xaddl %0, %1\n\t"
-                    : "+r" (inc), "+m" (lock->tickets)
-                    : : "memory", "cc");
-
-       for (;;) {
-               if (inc.head == inc.tail)
-                       goto out;
-               cpu_relax();
-               inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
-       }
-out:   barrier();              /* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is 
taken */
-}
-
 static __always_inline int __ticket_spin_trylock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
 {
        unsigned tmp;
-- 
1.7.2.3


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

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