lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + spinlock_debug-dont-recompute-jiffies_per_loop.patch added to -mm tree
In-Reply-To: <20060725204306.GA22547@elte.hu>

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:43:06 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > iteration limit, gets recomputed every time. Caching it explicitly
> > > prevents that.
> >
> > What is the purpose of those __delays being there at all ? Seems odd
> > to be waiting that long when the spinlock could become available a lot
> > sooner. (These also make spinlock debug really painful on boxes with
> > huge numbers of CPUs).
>
> the debug code has to figure out when to trigger a deadlock warning
> message. If we are looping in a deadlock with irqs disabled on all CPUs,
> there's nothing that advances jiffies. The TSC is not reliable. The
> thing that remains is to use __delay(1). We could calibrate the loop
> separately perhaps?

Is there some reason this code:

for (i = 0; i < loops_per_jiffy * HZ; i++) {
if (__raw_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
return;
__delay(1);
}

needs to continuously try to update the spinlock? Shouldn't it just
read it first, like this, to avoid the bus update traffic?

if (spin_can_lock(&lock->raw_lock) &&
__raw_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
return;


Also, looking at __delay(), I foresee problems on i386 with the HPET timer.
Every call to __delay() causes at least two HPET timer reads and it looks
like they're slow (using readl() on ioremapped memory, anyway.)

--
Chuck

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-27 08:01    [W:0.027 / U:1.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site