Re: [PATCH RFC 02/12] x86/ticketlock: convert spin loop to C

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

 On 08/06/2010 02:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/06/2010 01:33 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > On 08/06/2010 01:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 08/06/2010 07:53 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > > On 08/06/2010 05:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > You certainly mean "the compiler currently treats this as being:" - I
> > > > > don't think there's a guarantee it'll always be doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > > for (;;) {
> > > > > > if (inc.tickets.head == inc.tickets.tail)
> > > > > > goto out;
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > out: barrier();
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Which would probably be a reasonable way to clarify the code.)
> > > > > I therefore think it needs to be written this way.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > A call/return to an actual out-of-line function is a barrier (and will
> > > always be a barrier, as it is the fundamental ABI sequence points),
> > > but to an inline function it is not.
> >
> > Yes. So the goto explicitly puts the barrier into the control flow which
> > should stop the compiler from doing anything unexpected.
>
> In this particular case, though, I would somewhat expect the more 
> conventional:
>
> while (inc.tickets.head != inc.tickets.tail) {
>     cpu_relax();
>     inc.tickets.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets_head);
> }

Yes, that makes sense for the plain spinlock version.  But the full 
code, including the pv-ticketlock spin timeout, ends up being:

static __always_inline void arch_spin_lock(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
{
	register struct __raw_tickets inc;

	inc = __ticket_spin_claim(lock);

	for (;;) {
		unsigned count = SPIN_THRESHOLD;

		do {
			if (inc.head == inc.tail)
				goto out;
			cpu_relax();
			inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
		} while (--count);
		__ticket_lock_spinning(lock, inc.tail);
	}
out:	barrier();		/* make sure nothing creeps before the lock is taken */
}

So the goto form is closer to the final form.  If it weren't for this, 
I'd also prefer the while() form.

(If you config PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=n, then __ticket_lock_spinning() 
becomes an empty inline, which causes gcc to collapse the whole thing 
into a simple infinite loop (ie, it eliminates "count" and the inner loop).)


    J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/