Message-ID: <1404436043.8764.95.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cancellable MCS spinlock rework
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, andi@firstfloor.org,
        James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, aswin@hp.com, scott.norton@hp.com,
        chegu_vinod@hp.com
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:07:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <53B5BE99.1090008@hp.com>
References: <1404318070-2856-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
	  <20140702162749.GP19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	  <1404320356.3170.12.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	  <20140702172333.GQ19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	  <1404322203.3170.17.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	  <20140703073107.GS19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	  <1404407389.2498.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
	 <1404412485.8764.33.camel@j-VirtualBox> <53B5BE99.1090008@hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 16:35 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

> I do see a point in reducing the size of the rwsem structure. However, I 
> don't quite understand the point of converting pointers in the 
> optimistic_spin_queue structure to atomic_t. The structure is cacheline 
> aligned and there is no saving in size. Converting them to atomic_t does 
> have a bit of additional overhead of converting the encoded cpu number 
> back to the actual pointer.
> 
> So my suggestion is to just change what is stored in the mutex and rwsem 
> structure to atomic_t, but keep the pointers in the 
> optimistic_spin_queue structure.

Peter, would you prefer going with the above?

If we were to keep the pointers to the next and prev nodes in the struct
optimistic_spin_queue instead of converting them to atomic_t to store
their cpu #, we'd still need to keep track of the cpu #. In the unqueue
phase of osq_lock, we might have to reload prev = node->prev which we
then may cmpxchg() it with the lock tail.

The method we can think of so far would be to add a regular int variable
to optimistic_spin_queue and initialize it to the CPU #, during the time
we also initialize node->locked and node->next at the beginning of
osq_lock. The cost wouldn't be much of an issue since
optimistic_spin_queue is cache aligned.

--
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/