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 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:02:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150616180227.GA2401@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1434407043-18741-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:24:03PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
> in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
> causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
> patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
> with new readers.
>
> A multithreaded microbenchmark running 5M read_lock/write_lock loop
> on a 8-socket 80-core Westmere-EX machine running 4.0 based kernel
> with the qspinlock patch have the following execution times (in ms)
> with and without the patch:
>
> With R:W ratio = 5:1
>
> Threads w/o patch with patch % change
> ------- --------- ---------- --------
> 2 990 895 -9.6%
> 3 2136 1912 -10.5%
> 4 3166 2830 -10.6%
> 5 3953 3629 -8.2%
> 6 4628 4405 -4.8%
> 7 5344 5197 -2.8%
> 8 6065 6004 -1.0%
> 9 6826 6811 -0.2%
> 10 7599 7599 0.0%
> 15 9757 9766 +0.1%
> 20 13767 13817 +0.4%
>
> With small number of contending threads, this patch can improve
> locking performance by up to 10%. With more contending threads,
> however, the gain diminishes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index d7d7557..559198a 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,26 @@
> #include <linux/hardirq.h>
> #include <asm/qrwlock.h>
>
> +/*
> + * This internal data structure is used for optimizing access to some of
> + * the subfields within the atomic_t cnts.
> + */
> +struct __qrwlock {
> + union {
> + atomic_t cnts;
> + struct {
> +#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + u8 wmode; /* Writer mode */
> + u8 rcnts[3]; /* Reader counts */
> +#else
> + u8 rcnts[3]; /* Reader counts */
> + u8 wmode; /* Writer mode */
> +#endif
> + };
> + };
> + arch_spinlock_t lock;
> +};
> +
> /**
> * rspin_until_writer_unlock - inc reader count & spin until writer is gone
> * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> @@ -109,10 +129,10 @@ void queue_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> * or wait for a previous writer to go away.
> */
> for (;;) {
> - cnts = atomic_read(&lock->cnts);
> - if (!(cnts & _QW_WMASK) &&
> - (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->cnts, cnts,
> - cnts | _QW_WAITING) == cnts))
> + struct __qrwlock *l = (struct __qrwlock *)lock;
> +
> + if (!READ_ONCE(l->wmode) &&
> + (cmpxchg(&l->wmode, 0, _QW_WAITING) == 0))
> break;
Maybe you could also update the x86 implementation of queue_write_unlock
to write the wmode field instead of casting to u8 *?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-16 18:02 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
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 [this message]
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=20150616180227.GA2401@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