mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some archs
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:50:02 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161226055002.GA8717@tardis.cn.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1482697561-23848-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7329 bytes --]

Hi Wainman,

On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 03:26:01PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> A number of cmpxchg calls in qspinlock_paravirt.h were replaced by more
> relaxed versions to improve performance on architectures that use LL/SC.
> 
> All the locking related cmpxchg's are replaced with the _acquire
> variants:
>  - pv_queued_spin_steal_lock()
>  - trylock_clear_pending()
> 
> The cmpxchg's related to hashing are replaced by either by the _release
> or the _relaxed variants. See the inline comment for details.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> 
>  v1->v2:
>   - Add comments in changelog and code for the rationale of the change.
> 
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> index e3b5520..c31d1ab 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static inline bool pv_queued_spin_steal_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>  
>  	if (!(atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) &&
> -	    (cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0)) {
> +	    (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0)) {
>  		qstat_inc(qstat_pv_lock_stealing, true);
>  		return true;
>  	}
> @@ -101,16 +101,16 @@ static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  
>  /*
>   * The pending bit check in pv_queued_spin_steal_lock() isn't a memory
> - * barrier. Therefore, an atomic cmpxchg() is used to acquire the lock
> - * just to be sure that it will get it.
> + * barrier. Therefore, an atomic cmpxchg_acquire() is used to acquire the
> + * lock to provide the proper memory barrier.
>   */
>  static __always_inline int trylock_clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>  
>  	return !READ_ONCE(l->locked) &&
> -	       (cmpxchg(&l->locked_pending, _Q_PENDING_VAL, _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> -			== _Q_PENDING_VAL);
> +	       (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->locked_pending, _Q_PENDING_VAL,
> +				_Q_LOCKED_VAL) == _Q_PENDING_VAL);
>  }
>  #else /* _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8 */
>  static __always_inline void set_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static __always_inline int trylock_clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  		 */
>  		old = val;
>  		new = (val & ~_Q_PENDING_MASK) | _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
> -		val = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, old, new);
> +		val = atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, old, new);
>  
>  		if (val == old)
>  			return 1;
> @@ -209,9 +209,15 @@ static struct qspinlock **pv_hash(struct qspinlock *lock, struct pv_node *node)
>  	struct pv_hash_entry *he;
>  	int hopcnt = 0;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Synchronizing with the node state variable will control who does
> +	 * the hashing - the lock holder or lock waiter. The control
> +	 * dependency will ensure that node value is written after the lock
> +	 * value. So we don't need other ordering guarantee.
> +	 */

By this comment, you mean that
	
	cmpxchg_relaxed(&he->lock, NULL, lock);
	  r1 = ll he->lock;
	  <compare part>
	  sc he->lock, lock // successed

	if (r1)
		WRITE_ONCE(he->node, node);


the sc and WRITE_ONCE() can not be reordered because of the control
dependency? I dont think this is true. Yes the sc must execute before
the WRITE_ONCE(), but the memory/cache effects may be reordered. IOW,
the following may happen


	CPU 0			CPU 1
	===================	=======================
	{x = 0, y = 0}		if (!cmpxchg_relaxed(&y, 0, 1))
					WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
	r1 = READ_ONCE(x);

	smp_rmb();

	r2 = READ_ONCE(y);

The following result is possible:

	y = 1 && r1 = 1 && r2 = 0

Or I'm missing your point here? ;-) 

Regards,
Boqun

>  	for_each_hash_entry(he, offset, hash) {
>  		hopcnt++;
> -		if (!cmpxchg(&he->lock, NULL, lock)) {
> +		if (!cmpxchg_relaxed(&he->lock, NULL, lock)) {
>  			WRITE_ONCE(he->node, node);
>  			qstat_hop(hopcnt);
>  			return &he->lock;
> @@ -309,7 +315,7 @@ static void pv_wait_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node, struct mcs_spinlock *prev)
>  		 *     MB			      MB
>  		 * [L] pn->locked		[RmW] pn->state = vcpu_hashed
>  		 *
> -		 * Matches the cmpxchg() from pv_kick_node().
> +		 * Matches the cmpxchg_release() from pv_kick_node().
>  		 */
>  		smp_store_mb(pn->state, vcpu_halted);
>  
> @@ -323,8 +329,14 @@ static void pv_wait_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node, struct mcs_spinlock *prev)
>  		 * If pv_kick_node() changed us to vcpu_hashed, retain that
>  		 * value so that pv_wait_head_or_lock() knows to not also try
>  		 * to hash this lock.
> +		 *
> +		 * The smp_store_mb() and control dependency above will ensure
> +		 * that state change won't happen before that. Synchronizing
> +		 * with pv_kick_node() wrt hashing by this waiter or by the
> +		 * lock holder is done solely by the state variable. There is
> +		 * no other ordering requirement.
>  		 */
> -		cmpxchg(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_running);
> +		cmpxchg_relaxed(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_running);
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * If the locked flag is still not set after wakeup, it is a
> @@ -360,9 +372,12 @@ static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>  	 * pv_wait_node(). If OTOH this fails, the vCPU was running and will
>  	 * observe its next->locked value and advance itself.
>  	 *
> -	 * Matches with smp_store_mb() and cmpxchg() in pv_wait_node()
> +	 * Matches with smp_store_mb() and cmpxchg_relaxed() in pv_wait_node().
> +	 * A release barrier is used here to ensure that node->locked is
> +	 * always set before changing the state. See comment in pv_wait_node().
>  	 */
> -	if (cmpxchg(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed) != vcpu_halted)
> +	if (cmpxchg_release(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed)
> +			!= vcpu_halted)
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -461,8 +476,8 @@ static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * The cmpxchg() or xchg() call before coming here provides the
> -	 * acquire semantics for locking. The dummy ORing of _Q_LOCKED_VAL
> +	 * The cmpxchg_acquire() or xchg() call before coming here provides
> +	 * the acquire semantics for locking. The dummy ORing of _Q_LOCKED_VAL
>  	 * here is to indicate to the compiler that the value will always
>  	 * be nozero to enable better code optimization.
>  	 */
> @@ -488,11 +503,12 @@ static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * A failed cmpxchg doesn't provide any memory-ordering guarantees,
> -	 * so we need a barrier to order the read of the node data in
> -	 * pv_unhash *after* we've read the lock being _Q_SLOW_VAL.
> +	 * A failed cmpxchg_release doesn't provide any memory-ordering
> +	 * guarantees, so we need a barrier to order the read of the node
> +	 * data in pv_unhash *after* we've read the lock being _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>  	 *
> -	 * Matches the cmpxchg() in pv_wait_head_or_lock() setting _Q_SLOW_VAL.
> +	 * Matches the cmpxchg_acquire() in pv_wait_head_or_lock() setting
> +	 * _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>  	 */
>  	smp_rmb();
>  
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-26  5:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-25 20:26 Waiman Long
2016-12-26  5:50 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2017-01-03 22:23   ` Waiman Long
2017-01-03 16:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-03 22:07   ` Waiman Long
2017-01-04  9:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-05  8:16       ` Pan Xinhui
2017-01-05  9:48         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-05  9:51         ` Boqun Feng
2017-01-05 15:17         ` Waiman Long
2017-01-05 15:40           ` Boqun Feng
2017-01-05 15:30       ` Waiman Long
     [not found] ` <CAH4ORazqsCBA4G5paHtsp8PMfM=J3P6rvyR-53-ZLjn=7U6J0g@mail.gmail.com>
2017-02-08  4:05   ` Boqun Feng
2017-02-08  6:09     ` Boqun Feng
2017-02-08  6:47       ` Pan Xinhui
2017-02-08  6:48       ` Pan Xinhui
2017-02-08  7:09       ` Pan Xinhui
2017-02-08  7:15         ` Boqun Feng
     [not found]   ` <778926a5-cf9f-586b-6bc4-b9453d88aabb@redhat.com>
2017-02-13  2:24     ` panxinhui
2017-02-13  3:19       ` Boqun Feng
2017-02-17 19:01       ` 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=20161226055002.GA8717@tardis.cn.ibm.com \
    --to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®