Message-ID: <5661FCD0.60909@hpe.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 15:51:28 -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: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, 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, pjt@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
References: <20151203124010.627312076@infradead.org> <20151203124339.552838970@infradead.org> <20151203163725.GJ11337@arm.com> <20151203202627.GV17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20151203202627.GV17308@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: 2441
Lines: 64

On 12/03/2015 03:26 PM, 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?
Will the following work?

#define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr, neg) ({   \
         typeof(*ptr) _val;                              \
         while (neg ((_val = READ_ONCE(*ptr)) cond_expr))\
                 cpu_relax();                            \
         smp_rmb();                                      \
         _val;                                           \
})

         val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, & 
_Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK, !);

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/