WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 03/20] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_un

To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 03/20] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_unlock
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:00:30 -0400
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:01:49 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1288797218.2511.143.camel@edumazet-laptop>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <cover.1288794124.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <20092775a9df07a5a75820ac250194b535279d51.1288794124.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <1288797218.2511.143.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.6
On 11/03/2010 11:13 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 10:59 -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge a
> écrit :
>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> If we don't need to use a locked inc for unlock, then implement it in C.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h |   33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>  1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h 
>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> index 6711d36..082990a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> @@ -33,9 +33,23 @@
>>   * On PPro SMP or if we are using OOSTORE, we use a locked operation to 
>> unlock
>>   * (PPro errata 66, 92)
>>   */
>> -# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX LOCK_PREFIX
>> +static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_release(struct arch_spinlock 
>> *lock)
>> +{
>> +    if (sizeof(lock->tickets.head) == sizeof(u8))
>> +            asm (LOCK_PREFIX "incb %0"
>> +                 : "+m" (lock->tickets.head) : : "memory");
>> +    else
>> +            asm (LOCK_PREFIX "incw %0"
>> +                 : "+m" (lock->tickets.head) : : "memory");
>> +
>> +}
>>  #else
>> -# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX
>> +static __always_inline void __ticket_unlock_release(struct arch_spinlock 
>> *lock)
>> +{
>> +    barrier();
> technically speaking, it should be : smp_wmb()

Perhaps.  In practise it won't make a difference because it is defined
as barrier() unless OOSTORE is defined, in which case we need to do a
locked increment anyway.

Thanks,
    J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>