Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with _Q_SLOW_VAL

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 15:31 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:12 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > The smp_store_release() is not a full barrier. In order to avoid missed
> > wakeup, we may need to add memory barrier around locked and cpu state
> > variables adding to complexity. As the chance of spurious wakeup is very
> > low, it is easier and safer to just do an unconditional kick at unlock
> > time.
> 
> Although I guess if SPIN_THRESHOLD is ever enlarged, the chances of
> spurious wakeups would be greater.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thinking about this some more, as good practice, could you please add a
comment in the code explicitly mentioning the spurious wakeup side
effect? Perhaps even having something more generic for the entire kernel
might be added/created to Documentation/spurious-wakeups.txt?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/