Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kernel: implement queue spinlock API

[Eric Dumazet]

On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 14:34 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 03:13:30PM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > Introduce queue spinlocks, to be used in situations where it is desired
> > to have good throughput even under the occasional high-contention situation.
> > 
> > This initial implementation is based on the classic MCS spinlock,
> > because I think this represents the nicest API we can hope for in a
> > fast queue spinlock algorithm. The MCS spinlock has known limitations
> > in that it performs very well under high contention, but is not as
> > good as the ticket spinlock under low contention. I will address these
> > limitations in a later patch, which will propose an alternative,
> > higher performance implementation using (mostly) the same API.
> > 
> > Sample use case acquiring mystruct->lock:
> > 
> >   struct q_spinlock_node node;
> > 
> >   q_spin_lock(&mystruct->lock, &node);
> >   ...
> >   q_spin_unlock(&mystruct->lock, &node);
> 
> It is possible to keep the normal API for MCS locks by having the lock
> holder remember the parameter in the lock word itself.  While spinning,
> the node is on the stack, is not needed once the lock is acquired.
> The pointer to the next node in the queue -is- needed, but this can be
> stored in the lock word.
> 
> I believe that John Stultz worked on something like this some years back,
> so added him to CC.
> 

Hmm...

This could easily break if the spin_lock() is embedded in a function,
and the unlock done in another one.

(storage for the node would disappear at function epilogue )



--
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/