Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:57:52 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        mhocko@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        waiman.long@hpe.com, pjt@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Message-ID: <20151204144939.GA15969@arm.com>
References: <20151203124010.627312076@infradead.org>
 <20151203124339.552838970@infradead.org>
 <20151203163725.GJ11337@arm.com>
 <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2200
Lines: 58

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:26:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:37:26PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond)	do {		\
> > > +	while (!(cond))				\
> > > +		cpu_relax();			\
> > > +	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */	\
> > > +} while (0)
> 
> > > +	smp_cond_acquire(!((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
> > 
> > I think we spoke about this before, but what would work really well for
> > arm64 here is if we could override smp_cond_acquire in such a way that
> > the atomic_read could be performed explicitly in the macro. That would
> > allow us to use an LDXR to set the exclusive monitor, which in turn
> > means we can issue a WFE and get a cheap wakeup when lock->val is
> > actually modified.
> > 
> > With the current scheme, there's not enough information expressed in the
> > "cond" parameter to perform this optimisation.
> 
> Right, but I'm having a hard time constructing something pretty that can
> do that. Lambda functions would be lovely, but we don't have those :/
> 
> While we can easily pass a pointer to an arbitrary type, we need
> an expression to evaluate the result of the pointer load to act as our
> condition.
> 
>   smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
> 		   [](int val){ return !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK); });
> 
> Would be nice, but alas.
> 
> The best we can do is hardcode a variable name; maybe something like:
> 
> #define smp_cond_acquire(ptr, expr) do {			\
> 	typeof(*ptr) val;					\
> 	while ((val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)), expr)			\
> 		cpu_relax();					\
> 	smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */			\
> } while (0)
> 
> Which would let us write:
> 
>   smp_cond_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK));
> 
> 
> Thoughts?

That would certainly work for me, but I appreciate it's not pretty. We
could have an extra macro parameter for the name of the temporary
variable, if you wanted to make it explicit.

Will
--
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/