From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3t7x8T6jwnzDvPg for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:13:45 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id uA25DTra055946 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 01:13:44 -0400 Received: from e23smtp02.au.ibm.com (e23smtp02.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.144]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 26f8xujbep-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 01:13:43 -0400 Received: from localhost by e23smtp02.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:13:41 +1000 Received: from d23relay09.au.ibm.com (d23relay09.au.ibm.com [9.185.63.181]) by d23dlp03.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EE63578058 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:13:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay09.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id uA25Db5p4850014 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:13:37 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id uA25DaJT007507 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:13:37 +1100 From: Pan Xinhui To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel-request@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, x86@kernel.org Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, kernellwp@gmail.com, jgross@suse.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, dave@stgolabs.net, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, Pan Xinhui Subject: [PATCH v7 03/11] kernel/locking: Drop the overload of {mutex, rwsem}_spin_on_owner Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 05:08:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1478077718-37424-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1478077718-37424-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-Id: <1478077718-37424-4-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs has a heavy overload in the two spin_on_owner. This blames on the lock holder preemption issue. Kernel has an interface bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) to see if a vCPU is currently running or not. So break the spin loops on true condition. test-case: perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g 400 -p && perf report before patch: 20.68% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner 8.45% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock 4.12% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call 3.01% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call_common 2.83% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] copypage_power7 2.64% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner 2.00% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] osq_lock after patch: 9.99% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock 5.28% sched-messaging [unknown] [H] 0xc0000000000768e0 4.27% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __copy_tofrom_user_power7 3.77% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] copypage_power7 3.24% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_write_lock_irq 3.02% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call 2.69% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] wait_consider_task Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini Tested-by: Juergen Gross --- kernel/locking/mutex.c | 13 +++++++++++-- kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index a70b90d..24face6 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -236,7 +236,11 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner) */ barrier(); - if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) { + /* + * Use vcpu_is_preempted to detect lock holder preemption issue. + */ + if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched() || + vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner))) { ret = false; break; } @@ -261,8 +265,13 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock) rcu_read_lock(); owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner); + + /* + * As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if task is not + * on cpu or its cpu is preempted + */ if (owner) - retval = owner->on_cpu; + retval = owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner)); rcu_read_unlock(); /* * if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c index 2337b4b..b664ce1 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c @@ -336,7 +336,11 @@ static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem) goto done; } - ret = owner->on_cpu; + /* + * As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if task is not + * on cpu or its cpu is preempted + */ + ret = owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner)); done: rcu_read_unlock(); return ret; @@ -362,8 +366,12 @@ static noinline bool rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem) */ barrier(); - /* abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running */ - if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) { + /* + * abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running or + * owner's cpu is preempted. + */ + if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched() || + vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner))) { rcu_read_unlock(); return false; } -- 2.4.11