Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin

2009-01-06 Thread Lai Jiangshan
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +void mutex_spin_or_schedule(struct mutex_waiter *waiter, long state, 
> unsigned long *flags)
> +{
> + struct mutex *lock = waiter->lock;
> + struct task_struct *task = waiter->task;
> + struct task_struct *owner = lock->owner;
> + struct rq *rq;
> +
> + if (!owner)
> + goto do_schedule;
> +
> + rq = task_rq(owner);
> +
> + if (rq->curr != owner) {
> +do_schedule:
> + __set_task_state(task, state);
> + spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, *flags);
> + schedule();
> + } else {
> + spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, *flags);
> + for (;;) {
> + /* Stop spinning when there's a pending signal. */
> + if (signal_pending_state(state, task))
> + break;
> +
> + /* Owner changed, bail to revalidate state */
> + if (lock->owner != owner)
> + break;
> +
> + /* Owner stopped running, bail to revalidate state */
> + if (rq->curr != owner)
> + break;
> +

2 questions from my immature thought:

1) Do we need keep gcc from optimizing when we access lock->owner
   and rq->curr in the loop?

2) "if (rq->curr != owner)" need become smarter.
   schedule()
   {
select_next
rq->curr = next;
contex_swith
   }
we also spin when owner is select_next-ing in schedule().
but select_next is not fast enough.


Lai.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin

2009-01-06 Thread Lai Jiangshan
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 11:57 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> +void mutex_spin_or_schedule(struct mutex_waiter *waiter, long state, 
>>> unsigned long *flags)
>>> +{
>>> +   struct mutex *lock = waiter->lock;
>>> +   struct task_struct *task = waiter->task;
>>> +   struct task_struct *owner = lock->owner;
>>> +   struct rq *rq;
>>> +
>>> +   if (!owner)
>>> +   goto do_schedule;
>>> +
>>> +   rq = task_rq(owner);
>>> +
>>> +   if (rq->curr != owner) {
>>> +do_schedule:
>>> +   __set_task_state(task, state);
>>> +   spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, *flags);
>>> +   schedule();
>>> +   } else {
>>> +   spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, *flags);
>>> +   for (;;) {
>>> +   /* Stop spinning when there's a pending signal. */
>>> +   if (signal_pending_state(state, task))
>>> +   break;
>>> +
>>> +   /* Owner changed, bail to revalidate state */
>>> +   if (lock->owner != owner)
>>> +   break;
>>> +
>>> +   /* Owner stopped running, bail to revalidate state */
>>> +   if (rq->curr != owner)
>>> +   break;
>>> +
>> 2 questions from my immature thought:
>>
>> 1) Do we need keep gcc from optimizing when we access lock->owner
>>and rq->curr in the loop?
> 
> cpu_relax() is a compiler barrier iirc.
> 
>> 2) "if (rq->curr != owner)" need become smarter.
>>schedule()
>>{
>>  select_next
>>  rq->curr = next;
>>  contex_swith
>>}
>> we also spin when owner is select_next-ing in schedule().
>> but select_next is not fast enough.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying here..
> 
> 

I means when mutex owner calls schedule(), current task is also spinning
until rq->curr is changed.

I think such spin is not necessary, it is doing nothing but wasting time.
And this spin period is not short, and when this spin period ended,
rq->curr is changed too, current task has to sleep.

So I think current task should sleep earlier when it detects that
mutex owner start schedule().



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html