Re: [RFC] Cancellable MCS spinlock rework

[Waiman Long]

On 07/03/2014 02:34 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 10:09 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 09:31 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:30:03AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > > Would potentially reducing the size of the rw semaphore structure by 32
> > > > bits (for all architectures using optimistic spinning) be a nice
> > > > benefit?
> > > Possibly, although I had a look at the mutex structure and we didn't
> > > have a hole to place it in, unlike what you found with the rwsem.
> > Yeah, and currently struct rw_semaphore is the largest lock we have in
> > the kernel. Shaving off space is definitely welcome.
> Right, especially if it could help things like xfs inode.

I do see a point in reducing the size of the rwsem structure. However, I 
don't quite understand the point of converting pointers in the 
optimistic_spin_queue structure to atomic_t. The structure is cacheline 
aligned and there is no saving in size. Converting them to atomic_t does 
have a bit of additional overhead of converting the encoded cpu number 
back to the actual pointer.

So my suggestion is to just change what is stored in the mutex and rwsem 
structure to atomic_t, but keep the pointers in the 
optimistic_spin_queue structure.

-Longman
--
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/