Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

[Waiman Long]

On 02/19/2014 03:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 07:50:13PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 02/18/2014 04:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:39:31PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > The #ifdef is harder to take away here. The point is that doing a 32-bit
> > > > exchange may accidentally steal the lock with the additional code to handle
> > > > that. Doing a 16-bit exchange, on the other hand, will never steal the lock
> > > > and so don't need the extra handling code. I could construct a function with
> > > > different return values to handle the different cases if you think it will
> > > > make the code easier to read.
> > > Does it really pay to use xchg() with all those fixup cases? Why not
> > > have a single cmpxchg() loop that does just the exact atomic op you
> > > want?
> > The main reason for using xchg instead of cmpxchg is its performance impact
> > when the lock is heavily contended. Under those circumstances, a task may
> > need to do several tries of read+atomic-RMV before getting it right. This
> > may cause a lot of cacheline contention. With xchg, we need at most 2 atomic
> > ops. Using cmpxchg() does simplify the code a bit at the expense of
> > performance with heavy contention.
> Have you actually measured this?

I haven't actually measured that myself. It is mostly from my 
experience. I could do some timing experiment with the cmpxchg() change 
and report back to you later.

-Longman
--
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/