Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:52:25 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Preemptable Ticket Spinlock |
| |
On 04/22/2013 07:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2013-04-21 at 17:12 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> >> If we always incremented the ticket number by 2 (instead of 1), then >> we could use the lower bit of the ticket number as the spinlock. > > ISTR that paravirt ticket locks already do that and use the lsb to > indicate the unlock needs to perform wakeups. > > Also, since all of this is virt nonsense, shouldn't it live in the > paravirt ticket lock code and leave the native code as is?
Sure, but that is still no reason not to have the virt implementation be as fast as possible, and share the same data type as the non-virt implementation.
Also, is it guaranteed that the native spin_lock code has not been called yet before we switch over to the paravirt functions?
If the native spin_lock code has been called already at that time, the native code would still need to be modified to increment the ticket number by 2, so we end up with a compatible value in each spin lock's .tickets field, and prevent a deadlock after we switch over to the paravirt variant.
-- All rights reversed
| |