[PATCH v3 5/6] powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt qspinlocks for SPLPAR
Waiman Long
longman at redhat.com
Sat Jul 25 05:10:59 AEST 2020
On 7/24/20 4:16 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 08:47:59PM +0200, peterz at infradead.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:32:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> BTW, do you have any comment on my v2 lock holder cpu info qspinlock patch?
>>> I will have to update the patch to fix the reported 0-day test problem, but
>>> I want to collect other feedback before sending out v3.
>> I want to say I hate it all, it adds instructions to a path we spend an
>> aweful lot of time optimizing without really getting anything back for
>> it.
>>
>> Will, how do you feel about it?
> I can see it potentially being useful for debugging, but I hate the
> limitation to 256 CPUs. Even arm64 is hitting that now.
After thinking more about that, I think we can use all the remaining
bits in the 16-bit locked_pending. Reserving 1 bit for locked and 1 bit
for pending, there are 14 bits left. So as long as NR_CPUS < 16k
(requirement for 16-bit locked_pending), we can put all possible cpu
numbers into the lock. We can also just use smp_processor_id() without
additional percpu data.
>
> Also, you're talking ~1% gains here. I think our collective time would
> be better spent off reviewing the CNA series and trying to make it more
> deterministic.
I thought you guys are not interested in CNA. I do want to get CNA
merged, if possible. Let review the current version again and see if
there are ways we can further improve it.
Cheers,
Longman
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list