linux-arch.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: walken@google.com
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:58:10 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52680022.1020200@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131023120004.GD2862@localhost>

On 10/23/2013 08:00 AM, walken@google.com wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:09:04AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>> Tim Chen also tested the qrwlock with Ingo's patch on a 4-socket
>> machine.  It was found the performance improvement of 11% was the
>> same with regular rwlock or queue rwlock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hp.com>
> I haven't followed all the locking threads lately; did this get into any
> tree yet and is it still being considered ?

I think it is still being considered. I am hoping that it can get into 
3.13, if possible.

>> + * Writer state values&  mask
>> + */
>> +#define	QW_WAITING	1			/* A writer is waiting	   */
>> +#define	QW_LOCKED	0xff			/* A writer holds the lock */
>> +#define QW_MASK_FAIR	((u8)~QW_WAITING)	/* Mask for fair reader    */
>> +#define QW_MASK_UNFAIR	((u8)~0)		/* Mask for unfair reader  */
> I'm confused - I expect fair readers want to queue behind a waiting writer,
> so shouldn't this be QW_MASK_FAIR=~0 and QW_MASK_UNFAIR=~QW_WAITING ?

Yes, you are right. I think I had mixed up the values in a revision to 
the patch. I will send out an updated patch with the right values.

>> +/**
>> + * wait_in_queue - Add to queue and wait until it is at the head
>> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
>> + * @node: Node pointer to be added to the queue
>> + *
>> + * The use of smp_wmb() is to make sure that the other CPUs see the change
>> + * ASAP.
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline void
>> +wait_in_queue(struct qrwlock *lock, struct qrwnode *node)
>> +{
>> +	struct qrwnode *prev;
>> +
>> +	node->next = NULL;
>> +	node->wait = true;
>> +	prev = xchg(&lock->waitq, node);
>> +	if (prev) {
>> +		prev->next = node;
>> +		smp_wmb();
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Wait until the waiting flag is off
>> +		 */
>> +		while (ACCESS_ONCE(node->wait))
>> +			cpu_relax();
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * signal_next - Signal the next one in queue to be at the head
>> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
>> + * @node: Node pointer to the current head of queue
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline void
>> +signal_next(struct qrwlock *lock, struct qrwnode *node)
>> +{
>> +	struct qrwnode *next;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Try to notify the next node first without disturbing the cacheline
>> +	 * of the lock. If that fails, check to see if it is the last node
>> +	 * and so should clear the wait queue.
>> +	 */
>> +	next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
>> +	if (likely(next))
>> +		goto notify_next;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Clear the wait queue if it is the last node
>> +	 */
>> +	if ((ACCESS_ONCE(lock->waitq) == node)&&
>> +	    (cmpxchg(&lock->waitq, node, NULL) == node))
>> +			return;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Wait until the next one in queue set up the next field
>> +	 */
>> +	while (likely(!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))))
>> +		cpu_relax();
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The next one in queue is now at the head
>> +	 */
>> +notify_next:
>> +	barrier();
>> +	ACCESS_ONCE(next->wait) = false;
>> +	smp_wmb();
>> +}
> I believe this could be unified with mspin_lock() / mspin_unlock() in
> kernel/mutex.c ? (there is already talk of extending these functions
> to be used by rwsem for adaptive spinning as well...)

It probably can, but the unification can wait until the code are in.

> Not a full review yet - I like the idea of making rwlock more fair but
> I haven't dug too much into the details yet.
>

Thank for taking the time to review it.

-Longman

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-23 16:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-02 14:09 [PATCH v4 0/3] qrwlock: Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation Waiman Long
2013-10-02 14:09 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] qrwlock: A " Waiman Long
2013-10-02 14:09   ` Waiman Long
2013-10-23 12:00   ` walken
2013-10-23 12:00     ` walken
2013-10-23 16:58     ` Waiman Long [this message]
2013-10-24 10:14       ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-10-24 14:12         ` Waiman Long
2013-10-24 16:24           ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 14:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-10-02 14:09 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] qrwlock x86: Enable x86 to use queue read/write lock Waiman Long
2013-10-02 14:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-10-02 14:09 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] qrwlock: Enable fair " Waiman Long
2013-10-02 14:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-10-02 15:19 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] qrwlock: Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-02 15:25   ` Ingo Molnar

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=52680022.1020200@hp.com \
    --to=waiman.long@hp.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=aswin@hp.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@horizon.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=walken@google.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).