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 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static __always_inline void
+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
+{
+	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+
+	ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1;
+}
@@ -157,8 +251,13 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval)
  	 * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
  	 *
  	 * *,1,1 ->  *,1,0
+	 *
+	 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
+	 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
+	 * sequentiality; this because not all try_clear_pending_set_locked()
+	 * implementations imply full barriers.
You renamed the function referred in the above comment.


Sorry, will fix the comments.

-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