summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/include/linux/llist.h
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2011-11-01llist-return-whether-list-is-empty-before-adding-in-llist_add-fixAndrew Morton1-1/+1
clarify comment Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2011-10-11llist: Add back llist_add_batch() and llist_del_first() prototypesStephen Rothwell1-0/+6
Commit 1230db8e1543 ("llist: Make some llist functions inline") has deleted the definitions, causing problems for (not upstream yet) code that tries to make use of them. Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20111005172528.0d0a8afc65acef7ace22a24e@canb.auug.org.au Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-10-04llist: Remove cpu_relax() usage in cmpxchg loopsPeter Zijlstra1-1/+0
Initial benchmarks show they're a net loss: $ for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ; do echo performance > $i; done $ echo 4096 32000 64 128 > /proc/sys/kernel/sem $ ./sembench -t 2048 -w 1900 -o 0 Pre: run time 30 seconds 778936 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 912190 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 817506 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 830870 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 845056 worker burns per second Post: run time 30 seconds 905920 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 849046 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 886286 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 822320 worker burns per second run time 30 seconds 900283 worker burns per second So about 4% faster. (!) cpu_relax() stalls the pipeline, therefore, when used in a tight loop it has the following benefits: - allows SMT siblings to have a go; - reduces pressure on the CPU interconnect. However, cmpxchg loops are unfair and thus have unbounded completion time, therefore we should avoid getting in such heavily contended situations where the above benefits make any difference. A typical cmpxchg loop should not go round more than a handfull of times at worst, therefore adding extra delays just slows things down. Since the llist primitives are new, there aren't any bad users yet, and we should avoid growing them. Heavily contended sites should generally be better off using the ticket locks for serialization since they provide bounded completion times (fifo-fair over the cpus). Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1315836358.26517.43.camel@twins Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-10-04llist: Add llist_next()Peter Zijlstra1-0/+5
So we don't have to expose the struct list_node member. Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1315836348.26517.41.camel@twins Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-10-04llist: Return whether list is empty before adding in llist_add()Huang Ying1-1/+5
Extend the llist_add*() functions to return a success indicator, this allows us in the scheduler code to send an IPI if the queue was empty. ( There's no effect on existing users, because the list_add_xxx() functions are inline, thus this will be optimized out by the compiler if not used by callers. ) Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1315461646-1379-5-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-10-04llist: Move cpu_relax() to after the cmpxchg()Huang Ying1-2/+5
If in llist_add()/etc. functions the first cmpxchg() call succeeds, it is not necessary to use cpu_relax() before the cmpxchg(). So cpu_relax() in a busy loop involving cmpxchg() should go after cmpxchg() instead of before that. This patch fixes this for all involved llist functions. Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1315461646-1379-4-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-10-04llist: Remove the platform-dependent NMI checksIngo Molnar1-10/+2
Remove the nmi() checks spread around the code. in_nmi() is not available on every architecture and it's a pretty obscure and ugly check in any case. Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1315461646-1379-3-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-10-04llist: Make some llist functions inlineHuang Ying1-6/+58
Because llist code will be used in performance critical scheduler code path, make llist_add() and llist_del_all() inline to avoid function calling overhead and related 'glue' overhead. Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1315461646-1379-2-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2011-08-03lib, Add lock-less NULL terminated single listHuang Ying1-0/+126
Cmpxchg is used to implement adding new entry to the list, deleting all entries from the list, deleting first entry of the list and some other operations. Because this is a single list, so the tail can not be accessed in O(1). If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add can be used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in consumers. They can work simultaneously without lock. But llist_del_first can not be used here. Because llist_del_first depends on list->first->next does not changed if list->first is not changed during its operation, but llist_del_first, llist_add, llist_add (or llist_del_all, llist_add, llist_add) sequence in another consumer may violate that. If there are multiple producers and one consumer, llist_add can be used in producers and llist_del_all or llist_del_first can be used in the consumer. This can be summarized as follow: | add | del_first | del_all add | - | - | - del_first | | L | L del_all | | | - Where "-" stands for no lock is needed, while "L" stands for lock is needed. The list entries deleted via llist_del_all can be traversed with traversing function such as llist_for_each etc. But the list entries can not be traversed safely before deleted from the list. The order of deleted entries is from the newest to the oldest added one. If you want to traverse from the oldest to the newest, you must reverse the order by yourself before traversing. The basic atomic operation of this list is cmpxchg on long. On architectures that don't have NMI-safe cmpxchg implementation, the list can NOT be used in NMI handler. So code uses the list in NMI handler should depend on CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG. Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>