MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <524C71C1.9060408@hp.com>
References: <cover.1380144003.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
	<1380147049.3467.67.camel@schen9-DESK>
	<CAGQ1y=7Ehkr+ot3tDZtHv6FR6RQ9fXBVY0=LOyWjmGH_UjH7xA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1380226007.2170.2.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
	<1380226997.2602.11.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	<1380228059.2170.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
	<1380229794.2602.36.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	<1380231702.3467.85.camel@schen9-DESK>
	<1380235333.3229.39.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	<524C71C1.9060408@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:30:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGQ1y=7mU0cJfFN3DhuTkukjxm3MXm0PrUxdxFXfo7GT_umUkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and
 locking code into its own file
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
        Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1817
Lines: 47

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:
> On 09/26/2013 06:42 PM, Jason Low wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 14:41 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, that would makes sense for consistency because we always
>>> first set node->lock = 0 at the top of the function.
>>>
>>> If we prefer to optimize this a bit though, perhaps we can
>>> first move the node->lock = 0 so that it gets executed after the
>>> "if (likely(prev == NULL)) {}" code block and then delete
>>> "node->lock = 1" inside the code block.
>>>
>>> static noinline
>>> void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node
>>> *node)
>>> {
>>>         struct mcs_spin_node *prev;
>>>
>>>         /* Init node */
>>>         node->next   = NULL;
>>>
>>>         prev = xchg(lock, node);
>>>         if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
>>>                 /* Lock acquired */
>>>                 return;
>>>         }
>>>         node->locked = 0;
>
>
> You can remove the locked flag setting statement inside if (prev == NULL),
> but you can't clear the locked flag after xchg(). In the interval between
> xchg() and locked=0, the previous lock owner may come in and set the flag.
> Now if your clear it, the thread will loop forever. You have to clear it
> before xchg().

Yes, in my most recent version, I left locked = 0 in its original
place so that the xchg() can act as a barrier for it.

The other option would have been to put another barrier after locked =
0. I went with leaving locked = 0 in its original place so that we
don't need that extra barrier.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/