From: boqun.feng@gmail.com (Boqun Feng)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 10/10] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb()
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:47:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180407054711.rldyfcmni2wtblyu@tardis> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522947547-24081-11-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:59:07PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> The qspinlock slowpath must ensure that the MCS node is fully initialised
> before it can be reached by another other CPU. This is currently enforced
> by using a RELEASE operation when updating the tail and also when linking
> the node into the waitqueue (since the control dependency off xchg_tail
> is insufficient to enforce sufficient ordering -- see 95bcade33a8a
> ("locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised before updating prev->next")).
>
> Back-to-back RELEASE operations may be expensive on some architectures,
> particularly those that implement them using fences under the hood. We
> can replace the two RELEASE operations with a single smp_wmb() fence and
> use RELAXED operations for the subsequent publishing of the node.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 32 +++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index 3ad8786a47e2..42c61f7b37c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -141,10 +141,10 @@ static __always_inline void clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock)
> static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
> {
> /*
> - * Use release semantics to make sure that the MCS node is properly
> - * initialized before changing the tail code.
> + * We can use relaxed semantics since the caller ensures that the
> + * MCS node is properly initialized before updating the tail.
> */
> - return (u32)xchg_release(&lock->tail,
> + return (u32)xchg_relaxed(&lock->tail,
> tail >> _Q_TAIL_OFFSET) << _Q_TAIL_OFFSET;
> }
>
> @@ -178,10 +178,11 @@ static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
> for (;;) {
> new = (val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
> /*
> - * Use release semantics to make sure that the MCS node is
> - * properly initialized before changing the tail code.
> + * We can use relaxed semantics since the caller ensures that
> + * the MCS node is properly initialized before updating the
> + * tail.
> */
> - old = atomic_cmpxchg_release(&lock->val, val, new);
> + old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, new);
> if (old == val)
> break;
>
> @@ -340,12 +341,17 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> goto release;
>
> /*
> + * Ensure that the initialisation of @node is complete before we
> + * publish the updated tail and potentially link @node into the
I think it might be better if we mention exactly where we "publish the
updated tail" and "link @node", how about:
* publish the update tail via xchg_tail() and potentially link
* @node into the waitqueue via WRITE_ONCE(->next,..) below.
and also add comments below like:
> + * waitqueue.
> + */
> + smp_wmb();
> +
> + /*
> * We have already touched the queueing cacheline; don't bother with
> * pending stuff.
> *
> * p,*,* -> n,*,*
> - *
> - * RELEASE, such that the stores to @node must be complete.
* publish the updated tail
> */
> old = xchg_tail(lock, tail);
> next = NULL;
> @@ -356,15 +362,7 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> */
> if (old & _Q_TAIL_MASK) {
> prev = decode_tail(old);
> -
> - /*
> - * We must ensure that the stores to @node are observed before
> - * the write to prev->next. The address dependency from
> - * xchg_tail is not sufficient to ensure this because the read
> - * component of xchg_tail is unordered with respect to the
> - * initialisation of @node.
> - */
> - smp_store_release(&prev->next, node);
/* Eventually link @node to the wait queue */
Thoughts?
Regards,
Boqun
> + WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
>
> pv_wait_node(node, prev);
> arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended(&node->locked);
> --
> 2.1.4
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20180407/c08ab2ec/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-07 5:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-05 16:58 [PATCH 00/10] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58 ` [PATCH 01/10] locking/qspinlock: Don't spin on pending->locked transition in slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:58 ` [PATCH 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 15:08 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 21:16 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-06 15:08 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 20:50 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-06 21:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-07 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-07 23:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-09 10:58 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-07 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 10:58 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-09 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 17:19 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-10 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-20 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-20 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09 19:33 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-09 17:55 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-10 13:49 ` Sasha Levin
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg loop when claiming lock from head of queue Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 10:54 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 05/10] locking/mcs: Use smp_cond_load_acquire() in mcs spin loop Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 06/10] barriers: Introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed and atomic_cond_read_relaxed Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 10:55 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 07/10] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_relaxed to wait for next node Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 08/10] locking/qspinlock: Merge struct __qspinlock into struct qspinlock Will Deacon
2018-04-07 5:23 ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 09/10] locking/qspinlock: Make queued_spin_unlock use smp_store_release Will Deacon
2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 10/10] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb() Will Deacon
2018-04-05 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-06 11:34 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 13:05 ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-06 15:27 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 15:49 ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-07 5:47 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2018-04-09 10:47 ` Will Deacon
2018-04-06 13:22 ` [PATCH 00/10] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Andrea Parri
2018-04-11 10:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-11 15:39 ` Andrea Parri
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=20180407054711.rldyfcmni2wtblyu@tardis \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.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