Re: [PATCH 8/9] qspinlock: Generic paravirt support

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Apr 02 2015 - 13:22:30 EST

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 12:28:30PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 05:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:58:58PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>On 04/01/2015 02:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>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.
> >Right, that's broken. So we need to do something else to limit the
> >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?
> OK, I got your proposal now. However, there is still the issue that setting
> the _Q_SLOW_VAL flag and the hash bucket are not atomic wrt each other.

So? They're strictly ordered, that's sufficient. We first hash the lock,
then we set _Q_SLOW_VAL. There's a full memory barrier between them.

> It
> is possible a CPU has set the _Q_SLOW_VAL flag but not yet filling in the
> hash bucket while another one is trying to look for it.

Nope. The unlock side does an xchg() on the locked value first, xchg
also implies a full barrier, so that guarantees that if we observe
_Q_SLOW_VAL we must also observe the hash bucket with the lock value.

> So we need to have
> some kind of synchronization mechanism to let the lookup CPU know when is a
> good time to look up.

No, its all already ordered and working.


/* MB as per cmpxchg */
cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, _Q_SLOW_VAL);



if (xchg(&l->locked, 0) != _Q_SLOW_VAL)

/* MB as per xchg */

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at