lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: spin_lock behavior with ARM64 big.Little/HMP
From
Date


On 18/11/16 20:22, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
>
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> Thanks for taking a look!
>
> On 2016-11-18 02:30, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Hi Vikram,
>>
>> On 18/11/16 02:22, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This isn't really a bug report, but just a description of a
>>> frequency/IPC
>>> dependent behavior that I'm curious if we should worry about. The
>>> behavior
>>> is exposed by questionable design so I'm leaning towards don't-care.
>>>
>>> Consider these threads running in parallel on two ARM64 CPUs running
>>> mainline
>>> Linux:
>>>
>>
>> Are you seeing this behavior with the mainline kernel on any platforms
>> as we have a sort of workaround for this ?
>>
>
> If I understand that workaround correctly, the ARM timer event stream is
> used
> to periodically wake up CPUs that are waiting in WFE, is that right? I
> think
> my scenario below may be different because LittleCPU doesn't actually wait
> on a WFE event in the loop that is trying to increment lock->next, i.e.
> it's
> stuck in the following loop:
>
> ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
> /* LL/SC */
> " prfm pstl1strm, %3\n"
> "1: ldaxr %w0, %3\n"
> " add %w1, %w0, %w5\n"
> " stxr %w2, %w1, %3\n"
> " cbnz %w2, 1b\n",
>

Interesting. Just curious if this is r0p0/p1 A53 ? If so, is the errata
819472 enabled ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-21 16:22    [W:0.068 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site