Re: Memory transaction instructions
From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-01-19 01:48:32
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-fsdevel
From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-01-19 01:48:32
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-fsdevel
On Wed Jan 18, 2023 at 7:05 PM AEST, David Howells wrote:
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
And for the kernel, where we don't have bad locking, and where we actually use fine-grained locks that are _near_ the data that we are locking (the lockref of the dcache is obviously one example of that, but the skbuff queue you mention is almost certainly exactly the same situation): the lock is right by the data that the lock protects, and the "shared lock cacheline" model simply does not work. You'll bounce the data, and most likely you'll also touch the same lock cacheline too.Yeah. The reason I was actually wondering about them was if it would be possible to avoid the requirement to disable interrupts/softirqs to, say, modify the skbuff queue. On some arches actually disabling irqs is quite a heavy operation (I think this is/was true on ppc64, for example; it certainly was on frv) and it was necessary to "emulate" the disablement.
Not too bad on modern ppc64. Changing MSR in general has to flush the pipe and even re-fetch, because it can alter memory translation among other things, so it was heavy. Everything we support has a lightweight MSR change that just modifies the interrupt enable bit and only needs minor serialisation (although we still have that software-irq-disable thing which avoids the heavy MSR problem on old CPUs). Thanks, Nick