[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] xen: implement Xen-specific spinlocks

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>]

Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, lock_kicker_irq) = -1;
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct xen_spinlock *, lock_spinners);
> >     
> The plural is a bit misleading, as this is a single pointer per CPU.
>   
Yeah.  And it's wrong because it's specifically *not* spinning, but 
blocking.
> > +static noinline void xen_spin_unlock_slow(struct xen_spinlock *xl)
> > +{
> > +       int cpu;
> > +
> > +       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> >     
> Would it be feasible to have a bitmap for the spinning CPUs in order to
> do a for_each_spinning_cpu() here instead?  Or is setting a bit in
> spinning_lock() and unsetting it in unspinning_lock() more overhead than
> going over all CPUs here?
>   
Not worthwhile, I think.  This is a very rare path: it will only happen 
if 1) there's lock contention, that 2) wasn't resolved within the 
timeout.  In practice, this gets called a few thousand times per cpu 
over a kernbench, which is nothing.
My very original version of this code kept a bitmask of interested CPUs 
within the lock, but there's only space for 24 cpus if we still use a 
byte for the lock itself.  It all turned out fairly awkward, and this 
version is a marked improvement.
   J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel