Skip to content
Commit 96f853ea authored by Jeremy Fitzhardinge's avatar Jeremy Fitzhardinge Committed by H. Peter Anvin
Browse files

x86, ticketlock: Add slowpath logic



Maintain a flag in the LSB of the ticket lock tail which indicates
whether anyone is in the lock slowpath and may need kicking when
the current holder unlocks.  The flags are set when the first locker
enters the slowpath, and cleared when unlocking to an empty queue (ie,
no contention).

In the specific implementation of lock_spinning(), make sure to set
the slowpath flags on the lock just before blocking.  We must do
this before the last-chance pickup test to prevent a deadlock
with the unlocker:

Unlocker			Locker
				test for lock pickup
					-> fail
unlock
test slowpath
	-> false
				set slowpath flags
				block

Whereas this works in any ordering:

Unlocker			Locker
				set slowpath flags
				test for lock pickup
					-> fail
				block
unlock
test slowpath
	-> true, kick

If the unlocker finds that the lock has the slowpath flag set but it is
actually uncontended (ie, head == tail, so nobody is waiting), then it
clears the slowpath flag.

The unlock code uses a locked add to update the head counter.  This also
acts as a full memory barrier so that its safe to subsequently
read back the slowflag state, knowing that the updated lock is visible
to the other CPUs.  If it were an unlocked add, then the flag read may
just be forwarded from the store buffer before it was visible to the other
CPUs, which could result in a deadlock.

Unfortunately this means we need to do a locked instruction when
unlocking with PV ticketlocks.  However, if PV ticketlocks are not
enabled, then the old non-locked "add" is the only unlocking code.

Note: this code relies on gcc making sure that unlikely() code is out of
line of the fastpath, which only happens when OPTIMIZE_SIZE=n.  If it
doesn't the generated code isn't too bad, but its definitely suboptimal.

Thanks to Srivatsa Vaddagiri for providing a bugfix to the original
version of this change, which has been folded in.
Thanks to Stephan Diestelhorst for commenting on some code which relied
on an inaccurate reading of the x86 memory ordering rules.

Signed-off-by: default avatarJeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1376058122-8248-11-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com


Signed-off-by: default avatarSrivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarKonrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarRaghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
parent 851cf6e7
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment