Re: [RFC PATCH] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed

[Gao Xiang]

Hi Greg,

On 2018/10/13 15:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 02:47:29PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> It is better to use smp_cond_load_relaxed instead
>> of busy waiting for bit_spinlock.
> 
> Why?  I think we need some kind of "proof" that this is true before
> being able to accept a patch like this, don't you agree?

There are some materials which discuss smp_cond_load_* earlier.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10335991/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10325057/

In ARM64, they implements a function called "cmpwait", which uses
hardware instructions to monitor a value change, I think it is more
energy efficient than just do a open-code busy loop...

And it seem smp_cond_load_* is already used in the current kernel, such as:
./kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
./kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
./kernel/sched/core.c
./kernel/smp.c

For other architectures like x86/arm64, I think they could implement
smp_cond_load_* later.


Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>