Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/qspinlock: Improve determinism for x86

[Waiman Long]

On 09/26/2018 07:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Back when Will did his qspinlock determinism patches, we were left with one
> cmpxchg loop on x86 due to the use of atomic_fetch_or(). Will proposed a nifty
> trick:
>
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180409145409.GA9661@xxxxxxx
>
> But at the time we didn't pursue it. This series implements that and argues for
> its correctness. In particular it places an smp_mb__after_atomic() in
> between the two operations, which forces the load to come after the
> store (which is free on x86 anyway).
>
> In particular this ordering ensures a concurrent unlock cannot trigger
> the uncontended handoff. Also it ensures that if the xchg() happens
> after a (successful) trylock, we must observe that LOCKED bit.

When you said "concurrent unlock cannot trigger the uncontended
handoff", are you saying the current code has this uncontended handoff
problem or just when comparing to doing a load first followed by xchg()?

Cheers,
Longman