On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:04:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/23/20 2:47 PM, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:32:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > BTW, do you have any comment on my v2 lock holder cpu info qspinlock patch?
> > > I will have to update the patch to fix the reported 0-day test problem, but
> > > I want to collect other feedback before sending out v3.
> > I want to say I hate it all, it adds instructions to a path we spend an
> > aweful lot of time optimizing without really getting anything back for
> > it.
>
> It does add some extra instruction that may slow it down slightly, but I
> don't agree that it gives nothing back. The cpu lock holder information can
> be useful in analyzing crash dumps and in some debugging situation. I think
> it can be useful in RHEL for this readon. How about an x86 config option to
> allow distros to decide if they want to have it enabled? I will make sure
> that it will have no performance degradation if the option is not enabled.
Config knobs suck too; they create a maintenance burden (we get to make
sure all the permutations works/build/etc..) and effectively nobody uses
them, since world+dog uses what distros pick.
Anyway, instead of adding a second per-cpu variable, can you see how
horrible something like this is:
unsigned char adds(unsigned char var, unsigned char val)
{
unsigned short sat = 0xff, tmp = var;
asm ("addb %[val], %b[var];"
"cmovc %[sat], %[var];"
: [var] "+r" (tmp)
: [val] "ir" (val), [sat] "r" (sat)
);
return tmp;
}
Another thing to try is, instead of threading that lockval throughout
the thing, simply:
#define _Q_LOCKED_VAL this_cpu_read_stable(cpu_sat)
or combined with the above
#define _Q_LOCKED_VAL adds(this_cpu_read_stable(cpu_number), 2)
and see if the compiler really makes a mess of things.
