lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question on smp_mb__before_spinlock
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:54:03 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:27:08PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:23:54 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Interesting idea..
> > >
> > > So I'm not a fan of that raw_spin_lock wrapper, since that would end up
> > > with a lot more boiler-plate code than just the one extra barrier.
> >
> > #ifndef sched_ctxsw_raw_spin_lock
> > #define sched_ctxsw_raw_spin_lock(lock) raw_spin_lock(lock)
> > #endif
> >
> > #define sched_ctxsw_raw_spin_lock(lock) do { smp_mb() ; raw_spin_lock(lock); } while (0)
>
> I was thinking you wanted to avoid the lwsync in arch_spin_lock()
> entirely, at which point you'll grow more layers. Because then you get
> an arch_spin_lock_mb() or something and then you'll have to do the
> raw_spin_lock wrappery for that.
>
> Or am I missing the point of having the raw_spin_lock wrapper, as
> opposed to the extra barrier after it?
>
> Afaict the benefit of having that wrapper is so you can avoid issuing
> multiple barriers.

Oh you could do that too yes. But it's all going to be in
arch/powerpc, so I don't know if layers would be much problem.

I was thinking to avoid the hwsync inside the critical section.


> > > But moving MMIO/DMA/TLB etc.. barriers into this spinlock might not be a
> > > good idea, since those are typically fairly heavy barriers, and its
> > > quite common to call schedule() without ending up in switch_to().
> >
> > That's true I guess, but if we already have the arch specific smp_mb__
> > specifically for this context switch code, and you are asking for them to
> > implement *cacheable* memory barrier vs migration, then I see no reason
> > not to allow them to implement uncacheable as well.
> >
> > You make a good point about schedule() without switch_to(), but
> > architectures will still have no less flexibility than they do now.
>
> Ah, so you're saying make it optional where they put it? I was initially
> thinking you wanted to add it to the list of requirements. Sure,
> optional works.

Yes i.e., this primitive must provide minimally X, and optionally Y. If
Y is not provided, then switch_to or other arch hook must provide it.

Thanks,
Nick

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.037 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site