Re: [PATCH v10 10/19] qspinlock, x86: Allow unfair spinlock in a virtual guest

[Waiman Long]

On 05/08/2014 03:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:38AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>
> No, we want the unfair thing for VIRT, not PARAVIRT.

Yes, you are right. I will change that to VIRT.

> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> > index 9e7659e..10e87e1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> > @@ -227,6 +227,14 @@ static __always_inline int get_qlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> >   {
> >   	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS
> > +	if (static_key_false(&paravirt_unfairlocks_enabled))
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Need to use atomic operation to get the lock when
> > +		 * lock stealing can happen.
> > +		 */
> > +		return cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0;
> That's missing {}.

It is a single statement which doesn't need braces according to kernel 
coding style. I could move the comments up a bit to make it easier to read.

> > +#endif
>
> >   	barrier();
> >   	ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked) = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
> >   	barrier();
>
> But no, what you want is:
>
> static __always_inline bool virt_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_MUCK
> 	if (static_key_false(&virt_unfairlocks_enabled)) {
> 		while (!queue_spin_trylock(lock))
> 			cpu_relax();
>
> 		return true;
> 	}
> #else
> 	return false;
> }
>
>
> void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> {
> 	if (virt_lock(lock))
> 		return;
>
> 	...
> }

This is a possible way of doing it. I can do that in the patch series to 
simplify it. Hopefully that will speed up the review process and get it 
done quicker.

-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/