Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some archs
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Feb 20 2017 - 06:00:16 EST
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:20:52AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 03:43:40PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > @@ -361,6 +361,9 @@ static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> > * observe its next->locked value and advance itself.
> > *
> > * Matches with smp_store_mb() and cmpxchg() in pv_wait_node()
> > + *
> > + * We can't used relaxed form of cmpxchg here as the loading of
> > + * pn->state can happen before setting next->locked in some archs.
> > */
> > if (cmpxchg(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed) != vcpu_halted)
> Hi Waiman.
> cmpxchg() does not guarantee the (here implied) smp_mb(), in general; c.f.,
> e.g., arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic_ll_sc.h, where cmpxchg() get "compiled"
> to something like:
> _loop: ldxr; eor; cbnz _exit; stlxr; cbnz _loop; dmb ish; _exit:
So cmpxchg() should have an effective smp_mb() before and after the
operation, _except_ in the case of failure, in which case it need not
imply any barrier.
And since a successful cmpxchg does the store, which is a store-release
in that arm64 sequence, that provides the ordering against all prior
state. The dmb-ish provides the required barrier after the operation.