Re: [PATCH v15 09/15] pvqspinlock: Implement simple paravirt support for the qspinlock

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 05:41:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>+void __init __pv_init_lock_hash(void)
> >>+{
> >>+	int pv_hash_size = 4 * num_possible_cpus();
> >>+
> >>+	if (pv_hash_size<  (1U<<  LFSR_MIN_BITS))
> >>+		pv_hash_size = (1U<<  LFSR_MIN_BITS);
> >>+	/*
> >>+	 * Allocate space from bootmem which should be page-size aligned
> >>+	 * and hence cacheline aligned.
> >>+	 */
> >>+	pv_lock_hash = alloc_large_system_hash("PV qspinlock",
> >>+					       sizeof(struct pv_hash_bucket),
> >>+					       pv_hash_size, 0, HASH_EARLY,
> >>+					&pv_lock_hash_bits, NULL,
> >>+					       pv_hash_size, pv_hash_size);
> >	pv_taps = lfsr_taps(pv_lock_hash_bits);
> >
> 
> I don't understand what you meant here.

Let me explain (even though I propose taking all the LFSR stuff out).

pv_lock_hash_bit is a runtime variable, therefore it cannot compile time
evaluate the forest of if statements required to compute the taps value.

Therefore its best to compute the taps _once_, and this seems like a
good place to do so.

> >>+				goto done;
> >>+			}
> >>+		}
> >>+
> >>+		hash = lfsr(hash, pv_lock_hash_bits, 0);
> >Since pv_lock_hash_bits is a variable, you end up running through that
> >massive if() forest to find the corresponding tap every single time. It
> >cannot compile-time optimize it.
> 
> The minimum bits size is now 8. So unless the system has more than 64 vCPUs,
> it will get the right value in the first if statement.

Still, no reason to not pre-compute the taps value, its simple enough.


--
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/