lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kernel: implement queue spinlock API
From
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 14:34 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 03:13:30PM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> > Introduce queue spinlocks, to be used in situations where it is desired
>> > to have good throughput even under the occasional high-contention situation.
>> >
>> > This initial implementation is based on the classic MCS spinlock,
>> > because I think this represents the nicest API we can hope for in a
>> > fast queue spinlock algorithm. The MCS spinlock has known limitations
>> > in that it performs very well under high contention, but is not as
>> > good as the ticket spinlock under low contention. I will address these
>> > limitations in a later patch, which will propose an alternative,
>> > higher performance implementation using (mostly) the same API.
>> >
>> > Sample use case acquiring mystruct->lock:
>> >
>> > struct q_spinlock_node node;
>> >
>> > q_spin_lock(&mystruct->lock, &node);
>> > ...
>> > q_spin_unlock(&mystruct->lock, &node);
>>
>> It is possible to keep the normal API for MCS locks by having the lock
>> holder remember the parameter in the lock word itself. While spinning,
>> the node is on the stack, is not needed once the lock is acquired.
>> The pointer to the next node in the queue -is- needed, but this can be
>> stored in the lock word.
>>
>> I believe that John Stultz worked on something like this some years back,
>> so added him to CC.
>>
>
> Hmm...
>
> This could easily break if the spin_lock() is embedded in a function,
> and the unlock done in another one.
>
> (storage for the node would disappear at function epilogue )

No, I think that's doable. The trick would be that once a thread
acquires the lock, the only remaining use of the node is to receive
the 'next' pointer if/when another thread starts contending for the
lock. So if the lock state would need to distinguish between a lock
that is currently locked but not contended (the next value would then
be NULL), and a lock that is currently locked and contended (the
lock->next value is the node that goes after the current lock owner)

--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-08 01:41    [W:0.844 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site