[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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.