From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global impact
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:51:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160809095112.GG30192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
Currently the percpu-rwsem switches to (global) atomic ops while a
writer is waiting; which could be quite a while and slows down
releasing the readers.
This patch cures this problem by ordering the reader-state vs
reader-count (see the comments in __percpu_down_read() and
percpu_down_write()). This changes a global atomic op into a full
memory barrier, which doesn't have the global cacheline contention.
This also enables using the percpu-rwsem with rcu_sync disabled in order
to bias the implementation differently, reducing the writer latency by
adding some cost to readers.
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h | 84 +++++++++++++--
kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 228 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
2 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
@@ -10,30 +10,96 @@
struct percpu_rw_semaphore {
struct rcu_sync rss;
- unsigned int __percpu *fast_read_ctr;
+ unsigned int __percpu *read_count;
struct rw_semaphore rw_sem;
- atomic_t slow_read_ctr;
- wait_queue_head_t write_waitq;
+ wait_queue_head_t writer;
+ int readers_block;
};
-extern void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
-extern int percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
-extern void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
+extern int __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *, int);
+extern void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
+
+static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ might_sleep();
+
+ rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ /*
+ * We are in an RCU-sched read-side critical section, so the writer
+ * cannot both change sem->state from readers_fast and start checking
+ * counters while we are here. So if we see !sem->state, we know that
+ * the writer won't be checking until we're past the preempt_enable()
+ * and that one the synchronize_sched() is done, the writer will see
+ * anything we did within this RCU-sched read-size critical section.
+ */
+ __this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+ if (unlikely(!rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
+ __percpu_down_read(sem, false); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
+ preempt_enable();
+ /*
+ * The barrier() from preempt_enable() prevents the compiler from
+ * bleeding the critical section out.
+ */
+}
+
+static inline int percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ int ret = 1;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ /*
+ * Same as in percpu_down_read().
+ */
+ __this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+ if (unlikely(!rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
+ ret = __percpu_down_read(sem, true); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
+ preempt_enable();
+ /*
+ * The barrier() from preempt_enable() prevents the compiler from
+ * bleeding the critical section out.
+ */
+
+ if (ret)
+ rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ /*
+ * The barrier() in preempt_disable() prevents the compiler from
+ * bleeding the critical section out.
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
+ /*
+ * Same as in percpu_down_read().
+ */
+ if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
+ __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
+ else
+ __percpu_up_read(sem); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
+ preempt_enable();
+
+ rwsem_release(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+}
extern void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
extern void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
extern int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *,
const char *, struct lock_class_key *);
+
extern void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
-#define percpu_init_rwsem(brw) \
+#define percpu_init_rwsem(sem) \
({ \
static struct lock_class_key rwsem_key; \
- __percpu_init_rwsem(brw, #brw, &rwsem_key); \
+ __percpu_init_rwsem(sem, #sem, &rwsem_key); \
})
-
#define percpu_rwsem_is_held(sem) lockdep_is_held(&(sem)->rw_sem)
static inline void percpu_rwsem_release(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
--- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
@@ -8,152 +8,186 @@
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/errno.h>
-int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw,
+int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
const char *name, struct lock_class_key *rwsem_key)
{
- brw->fast_read_ctr = alloc_percpu(int);
- if (unlikely(!brw->fast_read_ctr))
+ sem->read_count = alloc_percpu(int);
+ if (unlikely(!sem->read_count))
return -ENOMEM;
/* ->rw_sem represents the whole percpu_rw_semaphore for lockdep */
- __init_rwsem(&brw->rw_sem, name, rwsem_key);
- rcu_sync_init(&brw->rss, RCU_SCHED_SYNC);
- atomic_set(&brw->slow_read_ctr, 0);
- init_waitqueue_head(&brw->write_waitq);
+ rcu_sync_init(&sem->rss, RCU_SCHED_SYNC);
+ __init_rwsem(&sem->rw_sem, name, rwsem_key);
+ init_waitqueue_head(&sem->writer);
+ sem->readers_block = 0;
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_init_rwsem);
-void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
/*
* XXX: temporary kludge. The error path in alloc_super()
* assumes that percpu_free_rwsem() is safe after kzalloc().
*/
- if (!brw->fast_read_ctr)
+ if (!sem->read_count)
return;
- rcu_sync_dtor(&brw->rss);
- free_percpu(brw->fast_read_ctr);
- brw->fast_read_ctr = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */
+ rcu_sync_dtor(&sem->rss);
+ free_percpu(sem->read_count);
+ sem->read_count = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_free_rwsem);
-/*
- * This is the fast-path for down_read/up_read. If it succeeds we rely
- * on the barriers provided by rcu_sync_enter/exit; see the comments in
- * percpu_down_write() and percpu_up_write().
- *
- * If this helper fails the callers rely on the normal rw_semaphore and
- * atomic_dec_and_test(), so in this case we have the necessary barriers.
- */
-static bool update_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw, unsigned int val)
+int __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, int try)
{
- bool success;
+ /*
+ * Due to having preemption disabled the decrement happens on
+ * the same CPU as the increment, avoiding the
+ * increment-on-one-CPU-and-decrement-on-another problem.
+ *
+ * If the reader misses the writer's assignment of readers_block, then
+ * the writer is guaranteed to see the reader's increment.
+ *
+ * Conversely, any readers that increment their sem->read_count after
+ * the writer looks are guaranteed to see the readers_block value,
+ * which in turn means that they are guaranteed to immediately
+ * decrement their sem->read_count, so that it doesn't matter that the
+ * writer missed them.
+ */
- preempt_disable();
- success = rcu_sync_is_idle(&brw->rss);
- if (likely(success))
- __this_cpu_add(*brw->fast_read_ctr, val);
- preempt_enable();
+ smp_mb(); /* A matches D */
- return success;
-}
+ /*
+ * If !readers_block the critical section starts here, matched by the
+ * release in percpu_up_write().
+ */
+ if (likely(!smp_load_acquire(&sem->readers_block)))
+ return 1;
-/*
- * Like the normal down_read() this is not recursive, the writer can
- * come after the first percpu_down_read() and create the deadlock.
- *
- * Note: returns with lock_is_held(brw->rw_sem) == T for lockdep,
- * percpu_up_read() does rwsem_release(). This pairs with the usage
- * of ->rw_sem in percpu_down/up_write().
- */
-void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
-{
- might_sleep();
- rwsem_acquire_read(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+ /*
+ * Per the above comment; we still have preemption disabled and
+ * will thus decrement on the same CPU as we incremented.
+ */
+ __percpu_up_read(sem);
- if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, +1)))
- return;
+ if (try)
+ return 0;
- /* Avoid rwsem_acquire_read() and rwsem_release() */
- __down_read(&brw->rw_sem);
- atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
- __up_read(&brw->rw_sem);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_down_read);
-
-int percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
-{
- if (unlikely(!update_fast_ctr(brw, +1))) {
- if (!__down_read_trylock(&brw->rw_sem))
- return 0;
- atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
- __up_read(&brw->rw_sem);
- }
+ /*
+ * We either call schedule() in the wait, or we'll fall through
+ * and reschedule on the preempt_enable() in percpu_down_read().
+ */
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
- rwsem_acquire_read(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+ /*
+ * Avoid lockdep for the down/up_read() we already have them.
+ */
+ __down_read(&sem->rw_sem);
+ this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+ __up_read(&sem->rw_sem);
+
+ preempt_disable();
return 1;
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_down_read);
-void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- rwsem_release(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
-
- if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, -1)))
- return;
+ smp_mb(); /* B matches C */
+ /*
+ * In other words, if they see our decrement (presumably to aggregate
+ * zero, as that is the only time it matters) they will also see our
+ * critical section.
+ */
+ __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
- /* false-positive is possible but harmless */
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&brw->slow_read_ctr))
- wake_up_all(&brw->write_waitq);
+ /* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
+ wake_up(&sem->writer);
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_up_read);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_up_read);
-static int clear_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+#define per_cpu_sum(var) \
+({ \
+ typeof(var) __sum = 0; \
+ int cpu; \
+ compiletime_assert_atomic_type(__sum); \
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) \
+ __sum += per_cpu(var, cpu); \
+ __sum; \
+})
+
+/*
+ * Return true if the modular sum of the sem->read_count per-CPU variable is
+ * zero. If this sum is zero, then it is stable due to the fact that if any
+ * newly arriving readers increment a given counter, they will immediately
+ * decrement that same counter.
+ */
+static bool readers_active_check(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- unsigned int sum = 0;
- int cpu;
+ if (per_cpu_sum(*sem->read_count) != 0)
+ return false;
- for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- sum += per_cpu(*brw->fast_read_ctr, cpu);
- per_cpu(*brw->fast_read_ctr, cpu) = 0;
- }
+ /*
+ * If we observed the decrement; ensure we see the entire critical
+ * section.
+ */
+
+ smp_mb(); /* C matches B */
- return sum;
+ return true;
}
-void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ /* Notify readers to take the slow path. */
+ rcu_sync_enter(&sem->rss);
+
+ down_write(&sem->rw_sem);
+
/*
- * Make rcu_sync_is_idle() == F and thus disable the fast-path in
- * percpu_down_read() and percpu_up_read(), and wait for gp pass.
- *
- * The latter synchronises us with the preceding readers which used
- * the fast-past, so we can not miss the result of __this_cpu_add()
- * or anything else inside their criticial sections.
+ * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the
+ * longish rcu_sync_enter() above, new readers could still come in.
*/
- rcu_sync_enter(&brw->rss);
+ WRITE_ONCE(sem->readers_block, 1);
- /* exclude other writers, and block the new readers completely */
- down_write(&brw->rw_sem);
+ smp_mb(); /* D matches A */
- /* nobody can use fast_read_ctr, move its sum into slow_read_ctr */
- atomic_add(clear_fast_ctr(brw), &brw->slow_read_ctr);
+ /*
+ * If they don't see our writer of readers_block, then we are
+ * guaranteed to see their sem->read_count increment, and therefore
+ * will wait for them.
+ */
- /* wait for all readers to complete their percpu_up_read() */
- wait_event(brw->write_waitq, !atomic_read(&brw->slow_read_ctr));
+ /* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
+ wait_event(sem->writer, readers_active_check(sem));
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_down_write);
-void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- /* release the lock, but the readers can't use the fast-path */
- up_write(&brw->rw_sem);
/*
- * Enable the fast-path in percpu_down_read() and percpu_up_read()
- * but only after another gp pass; this adds the necessary barrier
- * to ensure the reader can't miss the changes done by us.
+ * Signal the writer is done, no fast path yet.
+ *
+ * One reason that we cannot just immediately flip to readers_fast is
+ * that new readers might fail to see the results of this writer's
+ * critical section.
+ *
+ * Therefore we force it through the slow path which guarantees an
+ * acquire and thereby guarantees the critical section's consistency.
+ */
+ smp_store_release(&sem->readers_block, 0);
+
+ /*
+ * Release the write lock, this will allow readers back in the game.
+ */
+ up_write(&sem->rw_sem);
+
+ /*
+ * Once this completes (at least one RCU-sched grace period hence) the
+ * reader fast path will be available again. Safe to use outside the
+ * exclusive write lock because its counting.
*/
- rcu_sync_exit(&brw->rss);
+ rcu_sync_exit(&sem->rss);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_up_write);
next reply other threads:[~2016-08-09 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-09 9:51 Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-08-09 23:47 ` [PATCH v2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global impact John Stultz
2016-08-10 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-10 17:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <CAH7ZN-zXrenrbbcmvZ+biNozYe21jw6fULopG=g9-xRwWHE6nw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <5a2cc178ee03466fa3b104f8f28b44ff@NASANEXM02C.na.qualcomm.com>
2016-08-13 1:44 ` Om Dhyade
2016-08-24 21:16 ` John Stultz
2016-08-24 21:30 ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-24 22:50 ` John Stultz
2016-08-26 2:14 ` John Stultz
2016-08-26 12:51 ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-26 16:47 ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-08-26 20:10 ` Om Dhyade
2016-08-11 16:54 ` [PATCH] cgroup: avoid synchronize_sched() in __cgroup_procs_write() Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-18 10:59 ` [tip:locking/core] locking, rcu, cgroup: Avoid " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-18 13:41 ` tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-31 5:21 ` [v2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global impact Guenter Roeck
2016-08-31 8:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-31 13:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-31 13:47 ` Guenter Roeck
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=20160809095112.GG30192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ccross@google.com \
--cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=romlem@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tkjos@google.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.