[PATCH] Convert powerpc simple spinlocks into ticket locks
Peter Zijlstra
peterz at infradead.org
Fri Feb 7 23:28:37 EST 2014
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:49:49PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:45:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > That might need to be lhz too, I'm confused on all the load variants.
>
> ;-)
>
> > > unlock:
> > > lhz %0, 0, &tail
> > > addic %0, %0, 1
>
> No carry with this one, I'd say.
Right you are, add immediate it is.
> Besides, unlock increments the head.
No, unlock increments the tail, lock increments the head and waits until
the tail matches the pre-inc value.
That said, why do the atomic_inc() primitives do an carry add? (that's
where I borrowed it from).
> > > lwsync
> > > sth %0, 0, &tail
> > >
>
> Given the beauty and simplicity of this, may I ask Ingo:
> you signed off 314cdbefd1fd0a7acf3780e9628465b77ea6a836;
> can you explain why head and tail must live on the same cache
> line? Or is it just a space saver? I just ported it to ppc,
> I didn't think about alternatives.
spinlock_t should, ideally, be 32bits.
> What about
>
> atomic_t tail;
> volatile int head; ?
>
> Admittedly, that's usually 8 bytes instead of 4...
That still won't straddle a cacheline unless you do weird alignement
things which will bloat all the various data structures more still.
Anyway, you can do a version with lwarx/stwcx if you're looking get rid
of lharx.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list