From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH-tip v2 1/3] locking/rwsem: Check wait_list without lock if spinner present
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:04:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488827083-30078-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488827083-30078-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
In rwsem_wake(), we can safely check the wait_list to see if waiters
are present without lock when there are spinners to fall back on in
case we miss a waiter. The advantage is that we can save a pair of
spin_lock/unlock calls when the wait_list is empty. This translates
to a reduction in latency and hence slightly better performance.
The raw_spin_trylock_irqsave() call is also being replaced by a
raw_spin_is_locked() to reduce the overhead of irqsave/irqrestore
especially when the trylock fails.
On a 2-socket 36-core x86-64 E5-2699 v3 system, a rwsem microbenchmark
was run with 36 locking threads doing 1 million writer lock/unlock
operations each, the resulting locking rates (avg of 3 runs) on a
4.11-rc1 based kernel were 4,923 Mop/s and 5,136 Mop/s without and
with the patch respectively. That was an increase of about 4%.
On the same system, a 36-thread fio direct IO random write test to
the same 2GB file on a XFS formatted ramdisk was run. The aggregated
bandwidth was 1564.4 MB/s and 1593.0 MB/s before and after the
patch. That was an increase of about 2%.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
---
kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index 34e727f..f31dd61b 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
/*
* If a spinner is present, it is not necessary to do the wakeup.
- * Try to do wakeup only if the trylock succeeds to minimize
+ * Try to do wakeup only if the wait_lock is free to minimize
* spinlock contention which may introduce too much delay in the
* unlock operation.
*
@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
* --------------- -----------------------
* [S] osq_unlock() [L] osq
* MB RMB
- * [RmW] rwsem_try_write_lock() [RmW] spin_trylock(wait_lock)
+ * [RmW] rwsem_try_write_lock() [RmW] spin_is_locked(wait_lock)
*
* Here, it is important to make sure that there won't be a missed
* wakeup while the rwsem is free and the only spinning writer goes
@@ -611,12 +611,18 @@ struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
* state is consulted before reading the wait_lock.
*/
smp_rmb();
- if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags))
+
+ /*
+ * Normally checking wait_list without wait_lock isn't safe
+ * as we may miss an incoming waiter. With spinners present,
+ * however, we have someone to fall back on in case that
+ * happens.
+ */
+ if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list) ||
+ raw_spin_is_locked(&sem->wait_lock))
return sem;
- goto locked;
}
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
-locked:
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
__rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
--
1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-06 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-06 19:04 [PATCH-tip v2 0/3] locking/rwsem: Minor twists to improve rwsem performance Waiman Long
2017-03-06 19:04 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2017-03-06 19:04 ` [PATCH-tip v2 2/3] locking/rwsem: relocate rwsem_down_read_failed() Waiman Long
2017-03-06 19:04 ` [PATCH-tip v2 3/3] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1488827083-30078-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®