Re: [PATCH 8/5] llist: Remove cpu_relax() usage in cmpxchg loops

[Avi Kivity]

On 09/13/2011 05:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 14:43 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> >  Another issue is that hypervisors use PAUSE to detect a spinning guest
> >  and issue a directed yield to another vcpu.  But for cmpxchg loops, the
> >  "spinner" would just commit on the next loop, no?  So I think there's no
> >  objection from that front.
>
> Right, we shouldn't ever spend a significant amount spinning on a
> cmpxchg. If we do we need to fix that instead.

I hate arguing while agreeing, but the issue isn't that we don't spend a 
significant time spinning, but that there is no owner.  Should the other 
cpu go away, we just pick up a new copy of oldval and complete the 
transaction.

With spinlocks, even if you hold it for just a single guest cycle, the 
situation is different.  If the vcpu that holds the spinlock is 
preempted, the spinner is forced to spin until the owner is rescheduled.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/