linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/9] locking/qrwlock: avoid redundant atomic_add_return on read_lock_slowpath
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 19:19:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150707181941.GL23879@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <559C11BA.1070309@hp.com>

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 06:51:54PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 01:24 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > When a slow-path reader gets to the front of the wait queue outside of
> > interrupt context, it waits for any writers to drain, increments the
> > reader count and again waits for any additional writers that may have
> > snuck in between the initial check and the increment.
> >
> > Given that this second check is performed with acquire semantics, there
> > is no need to perform the increment using atomic_add_return, which acts
> > as a full barrier.
> >
> > This patch changes the slow-path code to use smp_load_acquire and
> > atomic_add instead of atomic_add_return. Since the check only involves
> > the writer count, we can perform the acquire after the add.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon<will.deacon@arm.com>
> > ---
> >   kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > index 96b77d1e0545..4e29bef688ac 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > @@ -98,7 +98,8 @@ void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
> >   	while (atomic_read(&lock->cnts)&  _QW_WMASK)
> >   		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> >
> > -	cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS,&lock->cnts) - _QR_BIAS;
> > +	atomic_add(_QR_BIAS,&lock->cnts);
> > +	cnts = smp_load_acquire((u32 *)&lock->cnts);
> >   	rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, cnts);
> >
> >   	/*
> 
> Atomic add in x86 is actually a full barrier too. The performance 
> difference between "lock add" and "lock xadd" should be minor. The 
> additional load, however, could potentially cause an additional 
> cacheline load on a contended lock. So do you see actual performance 
> benefit of this change in ARM?

I'd need to re-run the numbers, but atomic_add is significantly less
work on ARM than atomic_add_return, which basically has two full memory
barriers compared to none for the former.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-07 18:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-07 17:24 [PATCH 0/9] locking/qrwlock: get qrwlocks up and running on arm64 Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 1/9] locking/qrwlock: include <linux/spinlock.h> for arch_spin_{lock, unlock} Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 2/9] locking/qrwlock: avoid redundant atomic_add_return on read_lock_slowpath Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:51   ` Waiman Long
2015-07-07 18:19     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-07-07 19:28       ` Waiman Long
2015-07-08  9:59         ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-08 13:37           ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07 21:30     ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 3/9] locking/qrwlock: tidy up rspin_until_writer_unlock Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 4/9] locking/qrwlock: implement queue_write_unlock using smp_store_release Will Deacon
2015-07-08 10:00   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 5/9] locking/qrwlock: remove redundant cmpxchg barriers on writer slow-path Will Deacon
2015-07-08 10:05   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-08 13:34     ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 6/9] locking/qrwlock: allow architectures to hook in to contended paths Will Deacon
2015-07-08 10:06   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-08 13:35     ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 7/9] locking/qrwlock: expose internal lock structure in qrwlock definition Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 8/9] arm64: cmpxchg: implement cmpxchg_relaxed Will Deacon
2015-07-07 17:24 ` [PATCH 9/9] arm64: locking: replace read/write locks with generic qrwlock code Will Deacon

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=20150707181941.GL23879@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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).