Message-ID: <1438626129.17146.9.camel@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
 _Q_SLOW_VAL
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>, 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: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 11:22:09 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20150801222903.GC25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1438395724-25910-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	 <1438395724-25910-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	 <20150801222903.GC25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1838
Lines: 49

On Sun, 2015-08-02 at 00:29 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> That's just gibberish, even in the same cacheline stuff can get
> reordered.

true dat

> 
>                                                         So either we insert
> > +	 * memory barrier here and in the corresponding pv_wait_head()
> > +	 * function or we do an unconditional kick which is what is done here.
> 
> why, why why ? You've added words, but you've not actually described
> what the problem is you're trying to fix.
> 
> AFAICT the only thing we really care about here is that the load in
> question happens _after_ we observe SLOW, and that is still true.
> 
> The order against the unlock is irrelevant.
> 
> So we set ->state before we hash and before we set SLOW. Given that
> we've seen SLOW, we must therefore also see ->state.
> 
> If ->state == halted, this means the CPU in question is blocked and the
> pv_node will not get re-used -- if it does get re-used, it wasn't
> blocked and we don't care either.

Right, if it does get re-used, we were burning SPIN_THRESHOLD and racing
only wastes a few spins, afaict. In fact this is explicitly stated:

		/*
		 * The unlocker should have freed the lock before kicking the
		 * CPU. So if the lock is still not free, it is a spurious
		 * wakeup and so the vCPU should wait again after spinning for
		 * a while.
		 */

The thing I like about this patch is that it simplifies the
pv_kick/pv_wait flow, not having to depend on minutia like ->state
checking. But the condition about spurious wakeups is already there, so
really nothing changes.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/