Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Tue Jun 11 2013 - 16:54:09 EST
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 13:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> /*
> * This lock has lots of spinners, but no queue. Go create
> * a queue to spin on.
> *
> * In the common case, only the single task that
> * sees the head and tail tickets being different by
> * exactly TKT_Q_SWITCH will come here set up the queue,
> * which prevents a "thundering herd" of queue setups.
> * Although it is still possible for an unfortunate series
> * of lock handoffs and newly arrived tasks to result
> * in more than one task performing a queue setup, this
> * is unlikely. Of course, this situation must still be
> * handled correctly, which is the job of the cmpxchg()
> * in tkt_q_start_contend().
> */
> if (tkt_q_start_contend(ap, inc))
> return true;
>
> Does that help?
Yes, very good.
>
> > As TKT_Q_SWITCH doesn't have a type, I'm not sure how C will evaluate
> > this. I always screw type conversions up, and just add in the type casts
> > to be safe.
> >
> > You could also give TKT_Q_SWITCH a type too.
>
> This is an excellent point as well -- things might well get confused.
> My solution was to take your last suggestion and given TKT_Q_SWITCH the
> same type as inc.tail and inc.head, and also apply type-safety paranoia
> to TKT_Q_NQUEUES:
>
> /*
> * TKT_Q_SWITCH is twice the number of CPUs that must be spinning on a
> * given ticket lock to motivate switching to spinning on a queue.
> * The reason that it is twice the number is because the bottom bit of
> * the ticket is reserved for the bit that indicates that a queue is
> * associated with the lock.
> */
> #define TKT_Q_SWITCH ((__ticket_t)(CONFIG_TICKET_LOCK_QUEUED_SWITCH * 2))
>
> /*
> * TKT_Q_NQUEUES is the number of queues to maintain. Large systems
> * might have multiple highly contended locks, so provide more queues for
> * systems with larger numbers of CPUs.
> */
> #define TKT_Q_NQUEUES (2 * DIV_ROUND_UP(NR_CPUS + ((int)TKT_Q_SWITCH) - 1, \
> (int)TKT_Q_SWITCH))
>
> Does that look OK? (The limits on the value of TKT_Q_SWITCH should avoid
> signed integer overflow.)
>
Looks fine.
-- Steve
--
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/