From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'peterz@infradead.org'" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "'mingo@redhat.com'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"'will@kernel.org'" <will@kernel.org>,
"'boqun.feng@gmail.com'" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"'virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org'"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise the vcpu_is_preempted() check.
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 23:09:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a66efbd-fce0-49c3-bd71-63d52078d243@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3a9d1782cd50436c99ced8c10175bae6@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On 12/31/23 16:52, David Laight wrote:
> The vcpu_is_preempted() test stops osq_lock() spinning if a virtual
> cpu is no longer running.
>
> Although patched out for bare-metal the code still needs the cpu number.
> Reading this from 'prev->cpu' is a pretty much guaranteed have a cache miss
> when osq_unlock() is waking up the next cpu.
>
> Instead save 'prev->cpu' in 'node->prev_cpu' and use that value instead.
> Update in the osq_lock() 'unqueue' path when 'node->prev' is changed.
>
> This is simpler than checking for 'node->prev' changing and caching
> 'prev->cpu'.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 16 +++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> index e0bc74d85a76..eb8a6dfdb79d 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -14,8 +14,9 @@
>
> struct optimistic_spin_node {
> struct optimistic_spin_node *next, *prev;
> - int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> - int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> + int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> + int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> + int prev_cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> };
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node, osq_node);
> @@ -29,11 +30,6 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
> return cpu_nr + 1;
> }
>
> -static inline int node_cpu(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
> -{
> - return node->cpu - 1;
> -}
> -
> static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
> {
> int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
> @@ -110,9 +106,10 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
> return true;
>
> - node->locked = 0;
> + node->prev_cpu = old;
> prev = decode_cpu(old);
> node->prev = prev;
> + node->locked = 0;
>
> /*
> * osq_lock() unqueue
> @@ -144,7 +141,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> * polling, be careful.
> */
> if (smp_cond_load_relaxed(&node->locked, VAL || need_resched() ||
> - vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev))))
> + vcpu_is_preempted(READ_ONCE(node->prev_cpu) - 1)))
> return true;
>
> /* unqueue */
> @@ -201,6 +198,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> * it will wait in Step-A.
> */
>
> + WRITE_ONCE(next->prev_cpu, prev->cpu);
> WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
> WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, next);
>
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-01 4:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-31 21:49 [PATCH next v2 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
2023-12-31 21:51 ` [PATCH next v2 1/5] locking/osq_lock: Defer clearing node->locked until the slow osq_lock() path David Laight
2024-01-01 4:08 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-02 9:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-02 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-31 21:52 ` [PATCH next v2 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise the vcpu_is_preempted() check David Laight
2024-01-01 4:09 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2024-01-02 9:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-08 7:42 ` kernel test robot
2023-12-31 21:54 ` [PATCH next v2 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev David Laight
2024-01-01 4:09 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-31 21:54 ` [PATCH next v2 4/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path David Laight
2024-01-01 4:13 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-02 9:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-31 21:55 ` [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr() David Laight
2024-01-01 4:14 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-01 8:47 ` David Laight
2024-05-03 15:59 ` Waiman Long
2024-05-03 16:16 ` David Laight
2024-05-03 21:10 ` David Laight
2024-05-03 22:13 ` Waiman Long
2024-05-04 20:26 ` David Laight
2024-01-02 9:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-02 10:20 ` David Laight
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=3a66efbd-fce0-49c3-bd71-63d52078d243@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zengheng4@huawei.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®