Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated per-cpu locks

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:41:53PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 02/17/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:12:57PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>On 02/17/2016 11:27 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I know we can use RCU for singly linked list, but I don't think we can use
> >>>>that for doubly linked list as there is no easy way to make atomic changes to
> >>>>both prev and next pointers simultaneously unless you are taking about 16b
> >>>>cmpxchg which is only supported in some architecture.
> >>>But its supported in the most important architecutes. You can fall back to
> >>>spinlocks on the ones that do not support it.
> >>>
> >>I guess with some limitations on how the lists can be traversed, we may be
> >>able to do that with RCU without lock. However, that will make the code more
> >>complex and harder to verify. Given that in both my and Dave's testing that
> >>contentions with list insertion and deletion are almost gone from the perf
> >>profile when they used to be a bottleneck, is it really worth the effort to
> >>do such a conversion?
> >My initial concern was the preempt disable delay introduced by holding
> >the spinlock over the entire iteration.
> >
> >There is no saying how many elements are on that list and there is no
> >lock break.
> 
> But preempt_disable() is called at the beginning of the spin_lock() call. So
> the additional preempt_disable() in percpu_list_add() is just to cover the
> this_cpu_ptr() call to make sure that the cpu number doesn't change. So we
> are talking about a few ns at most here.
> 

I'm talking about the list iteration, there is no preempt_disable() in
there, just the spin_lock, which you hold over the entire list, which
can be many, many element.