From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: david.laight.linux@gmail.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 next 5/5] Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:40:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1dd9484c-8016-43a3-b16c-1ece95636aa2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3afd7e58-8e31-4dba-860c-2055ba372423@redhat.com>
On 3/11/26 3:27 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 3/6/26 5:51 PM, david.laight.linux@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
>>
>> When osq_lock() returns false or osq_unlock() returns static
>> analysis shows that node->next should always be NULL.
>> This means that it isn't necessary to explicitly set it to NULL
>> prior to atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr) on entry to osq_lock().
>>
>> Defer determining the address of the CPU's 'node' until after the
>> atomic_exchange() so that it isn't done in the uncontented path.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 6 ++----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
>> index 0619691e2756..3f0cfdf1cd0f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
>> @@ -92,13 +92,10 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
>> bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>> {
>> - struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
>> - struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
>> + struct optimistic_spin_node *node, *prev, *next;
>> unsigned int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
>> unsigned int prev_cpu;
>> - node->next = NULL;
>
> Although it does look like node->next should always be NULL when
> entering osq_lock(), any future change may invalidate this assumption.
> I know you want to not touch the osq_node cacheline on fast path, but
> we will need a big comment here to explicitly spell out this
> assumption to make sure that we won't break it in the future.
>
> BTW, how much performance gain have you measured with this change? Can
> we just leave it there to be safe.
>
Or you could have something like
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING))
WARN_ON_ONCE(node->next != NULL);
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-11 19:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-06 22:51 [PATCH v3 next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 1/5] Only clear node->locked in the slow osq_lock() path david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 2/5] Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 3/5] Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 4/5] Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr() david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 5/5] Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:04 ` David Laight
2026-03-07 0:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-03-07 11:32 ` David Laight
2026-03-11 19:27 ` Waiman Long
2026-03-11 19:40 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2026-03-11 21:50 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
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=1dd9484c-8016-43a3-b16c-1ece95636aa2@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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®