Message-ID: <1437863509.3298.71.camel@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
 _Q_SLOW_VAL
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:31:49 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1437595962-21472-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
References: <1437595962-21472-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	 <1437595962-21472-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 807
Lines: 19

On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:12 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The smp_store_release() is not a full barrier. In order to avoid missed
> wakeup, we may need to add memory barrier around locked and cpu state
> variables adding to complexity. As the chance of spurious wakeup is very
> low, it is easier and safer to just do an unconditional kick at unlock
> time.

Although I guess if SPIN_THRESHOLD is ever enlarged, the chances of
spurious wakeups would be greater.

> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>

Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>

--
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/