lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] drm/ttm: Optimize reservation slightly
Hey,

Op 05-11-12 14:31, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> Reservation locking currently always takes place under the LRU spinlock.
> Hence, strictly there is no need for an atomic_cmpxchg call; we can use
> atomic_read followed by atomic_write since nobody else will ever reserve
> without the lru spinlock held.
> At least on Intel this should remove a locked bus cycle on successful
> reserve.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
>
Is that really a good thing to submit when I am busy killing lru lock around reserve? :-)

- while (unlikely(atomic_cmpxchg(&bo->reserved, 0, 1) != 0)) {
+ while (unlikely(atomic_xchg(&bo->reserved, 1) != 0)) {

Works without lru lock too!

In fact mutexes are done in a similar way[1], except with some more magic, and unlocked state is 1, not 0.
However I do think that to get that right (saves a irq disable in unlock path, and less wakeups in contended
case), I should really just post the mutex extension patches for reservations and ride the flames. It's
getting too close to real mutexes so I really want it to be a mutex in that case. So lets convert it.. Soon! :-)

~Maarten

[1] See linux/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h and linux/include/asm-generic/mutex-dec.h for how
archs generally implement mutex fastpaths.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-05 16:01    [W:0.058 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site