search for: slow_path_flag

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "slow_path_flag".

2015 Feb 10
0
[PATCH] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
...add could result in head overflow as tail is high. The other option was repeated cmpxchg which is bad I believe. Any suggestions? ( I have the V3 with Oleg's suggestion and performance numbers but without this getting resolved, It will be one unnecessary iteration). How about getting rid off SLOW_PATH_FLAG in spinlock (i.e. use it only as hint for paravirt), but do unlock_kick whenever we see that (tail-head) > TICKET_LOCK_INC?. (but this also may need cmpxchg in loop in unlock but we will be able to get rid of clear slowpath logic) Only problem is we may do unnecessary kicks even in 1x load.
2015 Feb 10
0
[PATCH] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
...add could result in head overflow as tail is high. The other option was repeated cmpxchg which is bad I believe. Any suggestions? ( I have the V3 with Oleg's suggestion and performance numbers but without this getting resolved, It will be one unnecessary iteration). How about getting rid off SLOW_PATH_FLAG in spinlock (i.e. use it only as hint for paravirt), but do unlock_kick whenever we see that (tail-head) > TICKET_LOCK_INC?. (but this also may need cmpxchg in loop in unlock but we will be able to get rid of clear slowpath logic) Only problem is we may do unnecessary kicks even in 1x load.
2015 Feb 10
4
[PATCH] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 03:04:22PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> So we have 3 choices, >> 1. xadd >> 2. continue with current approach. >> 3. a read before unlock and also after that. > > For the truly paranoid we have probe_kernel_address(), suppose the lock > was in
2015 Feb 10
4
[PATCH] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 03:04:22PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> So we have 3 choices, >> 1. xadd >> 2. continue with current approach. >> 3. a read before unlock and also after that. > > For the truly paranoid we have probe_kernel_address(), suppose the lock > was in