Re: [PATCH v9 05/19] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/17/2014 11:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+struct __qspinlock {
+	union {
+		atomic_t val;
+		struct {
+#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+			u16	locked_pending;
+			u16	tail;
+#else
+			u16	tail;
+			u16	locked_pending;
+#endif
+		};
+	};
+};
+
+/**
+ * clear_pending_set_locked - take ownership and clear the pending bit.
+ * @lock: Pointer to queue spinlock structure
+ * @val : Current value of the queue spinlock 32-bit word
+ *
+ * *,1,0 ->  *,0,1
+ */
+static __always_inline void
+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
+{
+	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+
+	ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1;
You lost the __constant_le16_to_cpu(_Q_LOCKED_VAL) there. The
unconditional 1 is wrong. You also have to flip the bytes in
locked_pending.

I don't think that is wrong. The lock byte is in the least significant 8 bits and the pending byte is the next higher significant 8 bits irrespective of the endian-ness. So a value of 1 in a 16-bit context means the lock byte is set, but the pending byte is cleared. The name "locked_pending" doesn't mean that locked variable is in a lower address than pending.

-Longman
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux