From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'peterz@infradead.org'" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"'longman@redhat.com'" <longman@redhat.com>
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: [PATCH next v2 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev.
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 21:54:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7906aaa73f93493c873e6286c1f96645@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b4e8a5816a742d2bd23fdbaa8498e80@AcuMS.aculab.com>
node->prev is only used to update 'prev' in the unlikely case
of concurrent unqueues.
This can be replaced by a check for node->prev_cpu changing
and then calling decode_cpu() to get the changed 'prev' pointer.
node->cpu (or more particularly) prev->cpu is only used for the
osq_wait_next() call in the unqueue path.
Normally this is exactly the value that the initial xchg() read
from lock->tail (used to obtain 'prev'), but can get updated
by concurrent unqueues.
Both the 'prev' and 'cpu' members of optimistic_spin_node are
now unused and can be deleted.
Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
---
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index eb8a6dfdb79d..27324b509f68 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -13,9 +13,8 @@
*/
struct optimistic_spin_node {
- struct optimistic_spin_node *next, *prev;
+ struct optimistic_spin_node *next;
int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
- int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
int prev_cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
};
@@ -91,10 +90,9 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
- int old;
+ int prev_cpu;
node->next = NULL;
- node->cpu = curr;
/*
* We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
@@ -102,13 +100,12 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
* the node fields we just initialised) semantics when updating
* the lock tail.
*/
- old = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr);
- if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
+ prev_cpu = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr);
+ if (prev_cpu == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
return true;
- node->prev_cpu = old;
- prev = decode_cpu(old);
- node->prev = prev;
+ node->prev_cpu = prev_cpu;
+ prev = decode_cpu(prev_cpu);
node->locked = 0;
/*
@@ -174,9 +171,16 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
/*
* Or we race against a concurrent unqueue()'s step-B, in which
- * case its step-C will write us a new @node->prev pointer.
+ * case its step-C will write us a new @node->prev_cpu value.
*/
- prev = READ_ONCE(node->prev);
+ {
+ int new_prev_cpu = READ_ONCE(node->prev_cpu);
+
+ if (new_prev_cpu == prev_cpu)
+ continue;
+ prev_cpu = new_prev_cpu;
+ prev = decode_cpu(prev_cpu);
+ }
}
/*
@@ -186,7 +190,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
* back to @prev.
*/
- next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, prev->cpu);
+ next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, prev_cpu);
if (!next)
return false;
@@ -198,8 +202,7 @@ 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(next->prev_cpu, prev_cpu);
WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, next);
return false;
--
2.17.1
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-31 21:54 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
2024-01-02 9:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-08 7:42 ` kernel test robot
2023-12-31 21:54 ` David Laight [this message]
2024-01-01 4:09 ` [PATCH next v2 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev 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=7906aaa73f93493c873e6286c1f96645@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--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®