> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:56:53PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
For some reason, I seem to be missing emails from your id/domain and hence had
missed this completely!
> > * bits. However, we need to be careful about this because someone
> > * may just be entering as we leave, and enter the slowpath.
> > */
> > -void __ticket_unlock_release_slowpath(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
> > +void __ticket_unlock_slowpath(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
> > {
> > struct arch_spinlock old, new;
> >
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(((__ticket_t)NR_CPUS) != NR_CPUS);
> >
> > old = ACCESS_ONCE(*lock);
> > -
> > new = old;
> > - new.tickets.head += TICKET_LOCK_INC;
> >
> > /* Clear the slowpath flag */
> > new.tickets.tail &= ~TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG;
> > + if (new.tickets.head == new.tickets.tail)
> > + cmpxchg(&lock->head_tail, old.head_tail, new.head_tail);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * If there's currently people waiting or someone snuck in
> > - * since we read the lock above, then do a normal unlock and
> > - * kick. If we managed to unlock with no queued waiters, then
> > - * we can clear the slowpath flag.
> > - */
> > - if (new.tickets.head != new.tickets.tail ||
> > - cmpxchg(&lock->head_tail,
> > - old.head_tail, new.head_tail) != old.head_tail) {
> > - /* still people waiting */
> > - __ticket_unlock_release(lock);
> > - }
> > -
> > + /* Wake up an appropriate waiter */
> > __ticket_unlock_kick(lock, new.tickets.head);
>
> Does the __ticket_unlock_kick need to be unconditional?
I recall having tried optimizing it to be conditional, something along these
lines:
if (new.ticket.head == new.tickets.tail) {
cmpxchg();
} else {
__ticket_unlock_kick(lock, new.tickets.head);
}
but it didn't work for some reason. I left the call unconditional as was the
case previously based on that experiment.
- vatsa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
