On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 03:04:22PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> So we have 3 choices,
>> 1. xadd
>> 2. continue with current approach.
>> 3. a read before unlock and also after that.
>
> For the truly paranoid we have probe_kernel_address(), suppose the lock
> was in module space and the module just got unloaded under us.
That's much too expensive.
The xadd shouldn't be noticeably more expensive than the current
"add_smp()". Yes, "lock xadd" used to be several cycles slower than
just "lock add" on some early cores, but I think these days it's down
to a single-cycle difference, which is not really different from doing
a separate load after the add.
The real problem with xadd used to be that we always had to do magic
special-casing for i386, but that's one of the reasons we dropped
support for original 80386.
So I think Raghavendra's last version (which hopefully fixes the
lockup problem that Sasha reported) together with changing that
add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC);
if (READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.tail) & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG) ..
into something like
val = xadd((&lock->ticket.head_tail, TICKET_LOCK_INC << TICKET_SHIFT);
if (unlikely(val & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) ...
would be the right thing to do. Somebody should just check that I got
that shift right, and that the tail is in the high bytes (head really
needs to be high to work, if it's in the low byte(s) the xadd would
overflow from head into tail which would be wrong).
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
