mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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



  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®