[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 05/19] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS
On 04/18/2014 03:46 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Waiman Long<waiman.long@xxxxxx> wrote:On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:+static __always_inline void +clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) +{ + struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock; + + ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1; +} @@ -157,8 +251,13 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval) * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away. * * *,1,1 -> *,1,0 + * + * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the + * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock + * sequentiality; this because not all try_clear_pending_set_locked() + * implementations imply full barriers.You renamed the function referred in the above comment.Sorry, will fix the comments.I suggest not renaming the function instead. try_clear_pending_set_locked() tells the intent in a clearer fashion. Thanks, Ingo I usually use the word "try" if there is a possibility of failure. However, the function will always succeed, albeit by waiting a bit in some cases. That is why I remove "try" from the name. -Longman _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |