mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.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>,
	Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 next 5/9] locking/osq_lock: Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 2026 09:41:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260907084133.3696-6-david.laight.linux@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260907084133.3696-1-david.laight.linux@gmail.com>

osq_unlink_from_next() is called by osq_unlock() and when osq_lock() returns
false (lock not acquired).
osq_unlink_from_next() will either have done an explicit xchg(&node->next, NULL)
or a cmpxchg() that checked that node was lock->tail.
In both cases node->next will be NULL in exit.
Since it can't be changed when not referenced by an osq_lock there is no
need to initialise it at the top of osq_lock().

The atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr) could probably changed back to
the '_acquire' version or even the _relaxed version.
The important barrier is after the write to node->prev.

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 | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index f39f77c3a07d..2f92d3d63da9 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ osq_unlink_from_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock, int prev)
 			 * We were the last queued, lock->tail now references
 			 * prev (or is 0 if the list is now empty).
 			 * If prev was spinning in this loop it can continue.
+			 *
+			 * Since we are the tail of the list, node->next
+			 * must be NULL.
 			 */
 			return NULL;
 		}
@@ -122,13 +125,10 @@ osq_unlink_from_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock, int prev)
 
 bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 {
-	struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
-	struct optimistic_spin_node *prev_ptr, *next;
+	struct optimistic_spin_node *node, *prev_ptr, *next;
 	int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
 	int prev;
 
-	node->next = NULL;
-
 	/*
 	 * We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
 	 * unlock() uncontended, or fastpath) and RELEASE (to publish
@@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	if (prev == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
 		return true;
 
+	node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
 	prev_ptr = decode_cpu(prev);
 	node->prev = prev;
 
-- 
2.39.5


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-07  8:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-07  8:41 [PATCH v4 next 0/9] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 1/9] locking/osq_lock: Add some comments about how it works David Laight
2026-09-09 14:57   ` Waiman Long
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 2/9] locking/osq_lock: Save the cpu number for 'prev' not the node address David Laight
2026-09-09 17:36   ` Waiman Long
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 3/9] locking/osq_lock: Set prev_cpu=0 instead of locked=1 David Laight
2026-09-09 18:01   ` Waiman Long
2026-09-09 18:52     ` David Laight
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 4/9] locking/osq_lock: Delete 'fast path' code from osq_unlock() David Laight
2026-09-07  8:41 ` David Laight [this message]
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 6/9] locking/osq: Use cpu number for 'next' pointer David Laight
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 7/9] locking/osq: Use 'unsigned int' for next/prev/tail David Laight
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 8/9] locking/osq: inline encode_cpu() and rename decode_cpu() David Laight
2026-09-07  8:41 ` [PATCH v4 next 9/9] locking/osq_lock: Swap next<->prev and tail<->head David Laight
2026-09-07 16:08 ` [PATCH v4 next 0/9] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code Linus Torvalds
2026-09-07 17:27   ` David Laight
2026-09-09 14:15     ` Haakon Bugge
2026-09-09 19:09       ` David Laight
2026-09-09 20:14       ` Waiman Long
2026-09-09 20:33         ` Waiman Long
2026-09-10  9:45           ` Haakon Bugge
2026-09-10 11:00             ` David Laight
2026-09-10 11:31               ` Haakon Bugge
2026-09-10 12:05                 ` David Laight
2026-09-10 15:30                   ` Haakon Bugge
2026-09-10 16:22                     ` 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=20260907084133.3696-6-david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun@kernel.org \
    --cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --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®