From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] locking/qrwlock: Better optimization for interrupt context readers
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:17:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150616121742.GB30522@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1434407043-18741-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Hi Waiman,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:24:02PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> The qrwlock is fair in the process context, but becoming unfair when
> in the interrupt context to support use cases like the tasklist_lock.
>
> The current code isn't that well-documented on what happens when
> in the interrupt context. The rspin_until_writer_unlock() will only
> spin if the writer has gotten the lock. If the writer is still in the
> waiting state, the increment in the reader count will cause the writer
> to remain in the waiting state and the new interrupt context reader
> will get the lock and return immediately. The current code, however,
> do an additional read of the lock value which is not necessary as the
> information have already been there in the fast path. This may sometime
> cause an additional cacheline load when the lock is highly contended.
>
> This patch passes the lock value information gotten in the fast path
> to the slow path to eliminate the additional read. It also clarify the
> action for the interrupt context readers more explicitly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
> ---
> include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h | 4 ++--
> kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index 00c12bb..d7d7557 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -43,22 +43,24 @@ rspin_until_writer_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
> * queue_read_lock_slowpath - acquire read lock of a queue rwlock
> * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> */
> -void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
> {
> - u32 cnts;
> -
> /*
> * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting
> */
> if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
> /*
> - * Readers in interrupt context will spin until the lock is
> - * available without waiting in the queue.
> + * Readers in interrupt context will get the lock immediately
> + * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet)
> + * or they will spin until the lock is available without
> + * waiting in the queue.
> */
> - cnts = smp_load_acquire((u32 *)&lock->cnts);
> + if ((cnts & _QW_WMASK) != _QW_LOCKED)
> + return;
I really doubt the check here is gaining you any performance, given
rspin_until_write_unlock does the same check immediately and should be
inlined. Just dropping the acquire and passing cnts through should be
sufficient.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-16 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-15 22:24 [PATCH v3 0/2] locking/qrwlock: More optimizations in qrwlock Waiman Long
2015-06-15 22:24 ` Waiman Long
2015-06-15 22:24 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] locking/qrwlock: Better optimization for interrupt context readers Waiman Long
2015-06-15 22:24 ` Waiman Long
2015-06-16 12:17 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-06-18 1:30 ` Waiman Long
2015-06-15 22:24 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING Waiman Long
2015-06-15 22:24 ` Waiman Long
2015-06-16 18:02 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-18 1:33 ` Waiman Long
2015-06-18 12:40 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-18 22:14 ` 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=20150616121742.GB30522@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.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