mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Xinhui Pan <mnipxh@gmail.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	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: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:05:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170208040540.GB9178@tardis.cn.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH4ORazqsCBA4G5paHtsp8PMfM=J3P6rvyR-53-ZLjn=7U6J0g@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3721 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:39:10AM +0800, Xinhui Pan wrote:
> 2016-12-26 4:26 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>:
> 
> > 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(-)
> >
> >
> > @@ -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;
> >
> > hi, Waiman
> We can't use _release here, a full barrier is needed.
> 
> There is pv_kick_node vs pv_wait_head_or_lock
> 
> [w] l->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL  //reordered here
> 
> if (READ_ONCE(pn->state) == vcpu_hashed) //False.
> 
>                    lp = (struct qspinlock **)1;
> 
> [STORE] pn->state = vcpu_hashed                        lp = pv_hash(lock,
> pn);
> pv_hash()                                                                if
> (xchg(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL) == 0) // fasle, not unhashed.
> 

This analysis is correct, but..

> Then the same lock has hashed twice but only unhashed once. So at last as
> the hash table grows big, we hit RCU stall.
> 
> I hit RCU stall when I run netperf benchmark
> 

how will a big hash table hit RCU stall? Do you have the call trace for
your RCU stall?

Regards,
Boqun

> thanks
> xinhui
> 
> 
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
> >

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-08  4:10 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
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 [this message]
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=20170208040540.GB9178@tardis.cn.ibm.com \
    --to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mnipxh@gmail.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®