Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()

Waiman Long
2019-02-22T03:28:47Z

On 02/21/2019 09:14 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:00:17PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Modify __down_read_trylock() to optimize for an unlocked rwsem and make
>> it generate slightly better code.
>>
>> Before this patch, down_read_trylock:
>>
>> 0x0000000000000000 <+0>: callq 0x5 <down_read_trylock+5>
>> 0x0000000000000005 <+5>: jmp 0x18 <down_read_trylock+24>
>> 0x0000000000000007 <+7>: lea 0x1(%rdx),%rcx
>> 0x000000000000000b <+11>: mov %rdx,%rax
>> 0x000000000000000e <+14>: lock cmpxchg %rcx,(%rdi)
>> 0x0000000000000013 <+19>: cmp %rax,%rdx
>> 0x0000000000000016 <+22>: je 0x23 <down_read_trylock+35>
>> 0x0000000000000018 <+24>: mov (%rdi),%rdx
>> 0x000000000000001b <+27>: test %rdx,%rdx
>> 0x000000000000001e <+30>: jns 0x7 <down_read_trylock+7>
>> 0x0000000000000020 <+32>: xor %eax,%eax
>> 0x0000000000000022 <+34>: retq
>> 0x0000000000000023 <+35>: mov %gs:0x0,%rax
>> 0x000000000000002c <+44>: or $0x3,%rax
>> 0x0000000000000030 <+48>: mov %rax,0x20(%rdi)
>> 0x0000000000000034 <+52>: mov $0x1,%eax
>> 0x0000000000000039 <+57>: retq
>>
>> After patch, down_read_trylock:
>>
>> 0x0000000000000000 <+0>: callq 0x5 <down_read_trylock+5>
>> 0x0000000000000005 <+5>: xor %eax,%eax
>> 0x0000000000000007 <+7>: lea 0x1(%rax),%rdx
>> 0x000000000000000b <+11>: lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi)
>> 0x0000000000000010 <+16>: jne 0x29 <down_read_trylock+41>
>> 0x0000000000000012 <+18>: mov %gs:0x0,%rax
>> 0x000000000000001b <+27>: or $0x3,%rax
>> 0x000000000000001f <+31>: mov %rax,0x20(%rdi)
>> 0x0000000000000023 <+35>: mov $0x1,%eax
>> 0x0000000000000028 <+40>: retq
>> 0x0000000000000029 <+41>: test %rax,%rax
>> 0x000000000000002c <+44>: jns 0x7 <down_read_trylock+7>
>> 0x000000000000002e <+46>: xor %eax,%eax
>> 0x0000000000000030 <+48>: retq
>>
>> By using a rwsem microbenchmark, the down_read_trylock() rate (with a
>> load of 10 to lengthen the lock critical section) on a x86-64 system
>> before and after the patch were:
>>
>> Before Patch After Patch
>> # of Threads rlock rlock
>> ------------ ----- -----
>> 1 14,496 14,716
>> 2 8,644 8,453
>> 4 6,799 6,983
>> 8 5,664 7,190
>>
>> On a ARM64 system, the performance results were:
>>
>> Before Patch After Patch
>> # of Threads rlock rlock
>> ------------ ----- -----
>> 1 23,676 24,488
>> 2 7,697 9,502
>> 4 4,945 3,440
>> 8 2,641 1,603
>>
>> For the uncontended case (1 thread), the new down_read_trylock() is a
>> little bit faster. For the contended cases, the new down_read_trylock()
>> perform pretty well in x86-64, but performance degrades at high
>> contention level on ARM64.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/rwsem.h | 13 ++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.h b/kernel/locking/rwsem.h
>> index 45ee002..1f5775a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.h
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.h
>> @@ -174,14 +174,17 @@ static inline int __down_read_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>
>> static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> {
>> - long tmp;
>> + /*
>> + * Optimize for the case when the rwsem is not locked at all.
>> + */
>> + long tmp = RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>>
>> - while ((tmp = atomic_long_read(&sem->count)) >= 0) {
>> - if (tmp == atomic_long_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, tmp,
>> - tmp + RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS)) {
>> + do {
>> + if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &tmp,
>> + tmp + RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS)) {
>> return 1;
>> }
>> - }
>> + } while (tmp >= 0);
> Nit: but I guess that should be RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE instead of 0.
>
> Will

Using RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE may be better. Anyway, it is not a big deal
as I am going to change this again in a later patch.

Thanks,
Longman

RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE