On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:20:04AM -0400, Alex Kogan wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> index bc6d3244e1af..71ee4b64c5d4 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> @@ -17,8 +17,18 @@
>
> struct mcs_spinlock {
> struct mcs_spinlock *next;
> +#ifndef CONFIG_NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS
> int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> int count; /* nesting count, see qspinlock.c */
> +#else /* CONFIG_NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS */
> + uintptr_t locked; /* 1 if lock acquired, 0 if not, other values */
> + /* represent a pointer to the secondary queue head */
> + u32 node_and_count; /* node id on which this thread is running */
> + /* with two lower bits reserved for nesting */
> + /* count, see qspinlock.c */
> + u32 encoded_tail; /* encoding of this node as the main queue tail */
> + struct mcs_spinlock *tail; /* points to the secondary queue tail */
> +#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS */
> };
Please, have another look at the paravirt code, in particular at struct
pv_node and its usage. This is horrible.
> #ifndef arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index 074f65b9bedc..7cc923a59716 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -527,6 +544,12 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> next = READ_ONCE(node->next);
> if (next)
> prefetchw(next);
> + } else {
> + /* In CNA, we must pass a non-zero value to successor when
> + * we unlock. This store should be harmless performance-wise,
> + * as we just initialized @node.
> + */
Buggered comment style, also, it confuses the heck out of me. What does
it want to say?
Also, why isn't it hidden in your pv_wait_head_or_lock() implementation?
> + node->locked = 1;
> }
>
