mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: panxinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	dave@stgolabs.net, will.deacon@arm.com, Waiman.Long@hpe.com,
	benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:09:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160627080959.GU30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160627064506.GE6512@insomnia>

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 02:45:06PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> +++ b/include/linux/vcpu_preempt.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
> +/*
> + * Primitives for checking the vcpu preemption from the guest.
> + */
> +
> +static long __vcpu_preempt_count(void)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static bool __vcpu_has_preempted(long vpc)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool __vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +struct vcpu_preempt_ops {
> +	/*
> +	 * Get the current vcpu's "preempt count", which is going to use for
> +	 * checking whether the current vcpu has ever been preempted
> +	 */
> +	long (*preempt_count)(void);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Return whether a vcpu is preempted
> +	 */
> +	bool (*is_preempted)(int cpu);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Given a "vcpu preempt count", Return whether a vcpu preemption ever
> +	 * happened after the .preempt_count() was called.
> +	 */
> +	bool (*has_preempted)(long vpc);
> +};
> +
> +extern struct vcpu_preempt_ops vcpu_preempt_ops;
> +
> +/* Default boilerplate */
> +#define DEFAULT_VCPU_PREEMPT_OPS			\
> +	{						\
> +		.preempt_count = __vcpu_preempt_count,	\
> +		.is_preempted = __vcpu_is_preempted,	\
> +		.has_preempted = __vcpu_has_preempted	\
> +	}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_VCPU_PREEMPTION_DETECTION
> +/*
> + * vcpu_preempt_count: Get the current cpu's "vcpu preempt count"(vpc).
> + *
> + * The vpc is used for checking whether the current vcpu has ever been
> + * preempted via vcpu_has_preempted().
> + *
> + * This function and vcpu_has_preepmted() should be called in the same
> + * preemption disabled critical section.
> + */
> +#define vcpu_preempt_count()	vcpu_preempt_ops.preempt_count()
> +
> +/*
> + * vcpu_is_preempted: Check whether @cpu's vcpu is preempted.
> + */
> +#define vcpu_is_preempted(cpu)	vcpu_preempt_ops.is_preempted(cpu)
> +
> +/*
> + * vcpu_has_preepmted: Check whether the current cpu's vcpu has ever been
> + * preempted.
> + *
> + * The checked duration is between the vcpu_preempt_count() which returns @vpc
> + * is called and this function called.
> + *
> + * This function and corresponding vcpu_preempt_count() should be in the same
> + * preemption disabled cirtial section.
> + */
> +#define vcpu_has_preempted(vpc)	vcpu_preempt_ops.has_preempted(vpc)
> +
> +#else /* CONFIG_HAS_VCPU_PREEMPTION_DETECTION */
> +#define vcpu_preempt_count() __vcpu_preempt_count()
> +#define vcpu_is_preempted(cpu) __vcpu_is_preempted(cpu)
> +#define vcpu_has_preempted(vpc) __vcpu_has_preempted(vpc)
> +#endif /* CONFIG_HAS_VCPU_PREEPMTION_DETECTION */

No, this is entirely insane, also broken.

No vectors, no actual function calls, nothing like that. You want the
below to completely compile away and generate the exact 100% same code
it does today.

> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>  #include <linux/percpu.h>
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/osq_lock.h>
> +#include <linux/vcpu_preempt.h>
>  
>  /*
>   * An MCS like lock especially tailored for optimistic spinning for sleeping
> @@ -87,6 +88,8 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>  	struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
>  	int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
>  	int old;
> +	int loops;
> +	long vpc;
>  
>  	node->locked = 0;
>  	node->next = NULL;
> @@ -106,6 +109,9 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>  	node->prev = prev;
>  	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
>  
> +	old = old - 1;

That's just nasty, and could result in an unconditional decrement being
issues, even though its never used.

> +	vpc = vcpu_preempt_count();
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Normally @prev is untouchable after the above store; because at that
>  	 * moment unlock can proceed and wipe the node element from stack.
> @@ -118,8 +124,14 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>  	while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) {
>  		/*
>  		 * If we need to reschedule bail... so we can block.
> +		 * An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs
> +		 * might fall in this loop and cause a huge overload.
> +		 * This is because vCPU A(prev) hold the osq lock and yield out,
> +		 * vCPU B(node) wait ->locked to be set, IOW, wait till
> +		 * vCPU A run and unlock the osq lock.
> +		 * NOTE that vCPU A and vCPU B might run on same physical cpu.
>  		 */
> -		if (need_resched())
> +		if (need_resched() || vcpu_is_preempted(old) || vcpu_has_preempted(vpc))
>  			goto unqueue;
>  
>  		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-27  8:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-25 17:42 Pan Xinhui
2016-06-25 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-25 15:21   ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-25 16:09     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-25 16:13       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-25 17:27         ` panxinhui
2016-06-25 19:12           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-26  4:59             ` panxinhui
2016-06-27  7:55               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-27 10:19                 ` xinhui
2016-06-25 16:28       ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-25 18:28         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-25 16:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-25 16:45       ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-25 17:27         ` panxinhui
2016-06-25 19:20           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-25 19:29             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-26  2:26             ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-26  5:21             ` panxinhui
2016-06-26  6:10               ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-26  6:58                 ` panxinhui
2016-06-26 14:11                   ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-26 15:54                     ` panxinhui
2016-06-26  6:59                 ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-26  7:08                   ` panxinhui
2016-06-26 14:29                     ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-26 15:11                       ` panxinhui
2016-06-27  6:45                   ` Boqun Feng
2016-06-27  7:36                     ` xinhui
2016-06-27  8:09                     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-27 10:31                       ` Boqun Feng

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=20160627080959.GU30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hpe.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome