On 7/24/20 4:16 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 08:47:59PM +0200, 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.
Will, how do you feel about it?
I can see it potentially being useful for debugging, but I hate the
limitation to 256 CPUs. Even arm64 is hitting that now.
After thinking more about that, I think we can use all the remaining
bits in the 16-bit locked_pending. Reserving 1 bit for locked and 1 bit
for pending, there are 14 bits left. So as long as NR_CPUS < 16k
(requirement for 16-bit locked_pending), we can put all possible cpu
numbers into the lock. We can also just use smp_processor_id() without
additional percpu data.
Also, you're talking ~1% gains here. I think our collective time would
be better spent off reviewing the CNA series and trying to make it more
deterministic.
I thought you guys are not interested in CNA. I do want to get CNA
merged, if possible. Let review the current version again and see if
there are ways we can further improve it.
Cheers,
Longman
