On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:58:58PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/01/2015 02:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:Right, that's broken. So we need to do something else to limit the
I am sorry that I don't quite get what you mean here. My point is that in
the hashing step, a cpu will need to scan an empty bucket to put the lock
in. In the interim, an previously used bucket before the empty one may get
freed. In the lookup step for that lock, the scanning will stop because of
an empty bucket in front of the target one.
lookup, because without that break, a lookup that needs to iterate the
entire array in order to determine -ENOENT, which is expensive.
So my alternative proposal is that IFF we can guarantee that every
lookup will succeed -- the entry we're looking for is always there, we
don't need the break on empty but can probe until we find the entry.
This will be bound in cost to the same number if probes we required for
insertion and avoids the full array scan.
Now I think we can indeed do this, if as said earlier we do not clear
the bucket on insert if the cmpxchg succeeds, in that case the unlock
will observe _Q_SLOW_VAL and do the lookup, the lookup will then find
the entry. And we then need the unlock to clear the entry.
Does that explain this? Or should I try again with code?