[PATCH v3 5/6] pv-qspinlock: use cmpxchg_release in __pv_queued_spin_unlock
Peter Zijlstra
peterz at infradead.org
Fri May 27 02:47:29 AEST 2016
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:18:08PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> cmpxchg_release is light-wight than cmpxchg, we can gain a better
> performace then. On some arch like ppc, barrier impact the performace
> too much.
>
> Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> index a5b1248..2bbffe4 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ __visible void __pv_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> * unhash. Otherwise it would be possible to have multiple @lock
> * entries, which would be BAD.
> */
> - locked = cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0);
> + locked = cmpxchg_release(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0);
> if (likely(locked == _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
> return;
This patch fails to explain _why_ it can be relaxed.
And seeing how this cmpxchg() can actually unlock the lock, I don't see
how this can possibly be correct. Maybe cmpxchg_release(), but relaxed
seems very wrong.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list