Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:37:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
 _Q_SLOW_VAL
Message-ID: <20150803183745.GY25159@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>
 <1438626129.17146.9.camel@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1438626129.17146.9.camel@stgolabs.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2067
Lines: 49

On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:22:09AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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.

OK, so there's no 'fix'? The patch claims we can loose a wakeup and I
just don't see how that is true.
--
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/