On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:15:33AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/18/2019 09:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Check time threshold every 16 iterations to
> >> + * avoid calling sched_clock() too frequently.
> >> + * This will make the actual spinning time a
> >> + * bit more than that specified in the threshold.
> >> + */
> >> + else if (!(++loop & 0xf) &&
> >> + (sched_clock() > rspin_threshold)) {
> > Why is calling sched_clock() lots a problem?
>
> Actually I am more concern about the latency introduced by the
> sched_clock() call. BTW, I haven't done any measurement myself. Do you
> know how much cost the sched_clock() call is?
>
> If the cost is relatively high, the average latency period after the
> lock is free and the spinner is ready to do a trylock will increase.
Totally depends on the arch or course :/ For 'sane' x86 it is: RDTSC,
MUL; SHRD; SHR; ADD, which is plenty fast.
I know we have poll loops with sched_clock/local_clock in them, I just
can't seem to find any atm.
