[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 05/19] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS
- To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:49:02 -0400
- Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@xxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@xxxxxx>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:49:13 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static __always_inline void
+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
+{
+ struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+
+ ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1;
+}
@@ -157,8 +251,13 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock,
u32 *pval)
* we're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
*
* *,1,1 -> *,1,0
+ *
+ * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
+ * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
+ * sequentiality; this because not all try_clear_pending_set_locked()
+ * implementations imply full barriers.
You renamed the function referred in the above comment.
Sorry, will fix the comments.
-Longman
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
