Message-ID: <5640CF08.2010001@hpe.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 11:51:20 -0500
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: 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@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v9 6/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Queue node
 adaptive spinning
References: <1446247597-61863-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1446247597-61863-7-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20151106150149.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <563CE93E.6090000@hpe.com> <20151106203709.GD17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20151106203709.GD17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1847
Lines: 46

On 11/06/2015 03:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:54:06PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> +static void pv_wait_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node, struct mcs_spinlock *prev)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;
>>>> +	struct pv_node *pp = (struct pv_node *)prev;
>>>>   	int waitcnt = 0;
>>>>   	int loop;
>>>> +	bool wait_early;
>>>>
>>>>   	/* waitcnt processing will be compiled out if !QUEUED_LOCK_STAT */
>>>>   	for (;; waitcnt++) {
>>>> -		for (loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; loop--) {
>>>> +		for (wait_early = false, loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; loop--) {
>>>>   			if (READ_ONCE(node->locked))
>>>>   				return;
>>>> +			if (pv_wait_early(pp, loop)) {
>>>> +				wait_early = true;
>>>> +				break;
>>>> +			}
>>>>   			cpu_relax();
>>>>   		}
>>>>
>>> So if prev points to another node, it will never see vcpu_running. Was
>>> that fully intended?
>> I had added code in pv_wait_head_or_lock to set the state appropriately for
>> the queue head vCPU.
> Yes, but that's the head, for nodes we'll always have halted or hashed.

The node state was initialized to be vcpu_running. In pv_wait_node(), it 
will be changed to vcpu_halted before sleeping and back to vcpu_running 
after that. So it is not true that it is either halted or hashed.

In case, it was changed to vcpu_hashed, it will be changed back to 
vcpu_running in pv_wait_head_lock before entering the active spinning 
loop. There are definitely a small amount of time where the node state 
does not reflect the actual vCPU state, but that is the best we can do 
so far.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/