Message-ID: <571DED2B.8060600@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:10:51 +0800
From: Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] powerpc: Implement {cmp}xchg for u8 and u16
References: <5715D04E.9050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <571782F0.2020201@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160420142408.GF3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5718F32B.3050409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160421161354.GI3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160421161354.GI3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1487
Lines: 38


On 2016年04月22日 00:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:35:07PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>> yes, you are right. more load/store will be done in C code.
>> However such xchg_u8/u16 is just used by qspinlock now. and I did not see any performance regression.
>> So just wrote in C, for simple. :)
> 
> Which is fine; but worthy of a note in your Changelog.
> 
will do that.

>> Of course I have done xchg tests.
>> we run code just like xchg((u8*)&v, j++); in several threads.
>> and the result is,
>> [  768.374264] use time[1550072]ns in xchg_u8_asm
>> [  768.377102] use time[2826802]ns in xchg_u8_c
>>
>> I think this is because there is one more load in C.
>> If possible, we can move such code in asm-generic/.
> 
> So I'm not actually _that_ familiar with the PPC LL/SC implementation;
> but there are things a CPU can do to optimize these loops.
> 
> For example, a CPU might choose to not release the exclusive hold of the
> line for a number of cycles, except when it passes SC or an interrupt
> happens. This way there's a smaller chance the SC fails and inhibits
> forward progress.
I am not sure if there is such hardware optimization.

> 
> By doing the modification outside of the LL/SC you loose such
> advantages.
> 
> And yes, doing a !exclusive load prior to the exclusive load leads to an
> even bigger window where the data can get changed out from under you.
> 
you are right.
We have observed such data change during the two different loads.