linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow new waiters to steal the lock before queueing
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:40:03 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5fdefbeaa6d81aa33c384c73e265049c43b70832.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220728063120.2867508-7-npiggin@gmail.com>

On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 16:31 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
[resend as utf-8, not utf-7]
> Allow new waiters a number of spins on the lock word before queueing,
> which particularly helps paravirt performance when physical CPUs are
> oversubscribed.
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c | 152 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 141 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
> index 7c71e5e287df..1625cce714b2 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
> @@ -19,8 +19,17 @@ struct qnodes {
>  	struct qnode nodes[MAX_NODES];
>  };
>  
> +/* Tuning parameters */
> +static int STEAL_SPINS __read_mostly = (1<<5);
> +static bool MAYBE_STEALERS __read_mostly = true;

I can understand why, but macro case variables can be a bit confusing.

> +
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct qnodes, qnodes);
>  
> +static __always_inline int get_steal_spins(void)
> +{
> +	return STEAL_SPINS;
> +}
> +
>  static inline u32 encode_tail_cpu(void)
>  {
>  	return (smp_processor_id() + 1) << _Q_TAIL_CPU_OFFSET;
> @@ -76,6 +85,39 @@ static __always_inline int trylock_clear_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 ol
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static __always_inline u32 __trylock_cmpxchg(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 old, u32 new)
> +{
> +	u32 prev;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(old & _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
> +
> +	asm volatile(
> +"1:	lwarx	%0,0,%1,%4	# queued_spin_trylock_cmpxchg		\n"

s/queued_spin_trylock_cmpxchg/__trylock_cmpxchg/

btw what is the format you using for the '\n's in the inline asm?

> +"	cmpw	0,%0,%2							\n"
> +"	bne-	2f							\n"
> +"	stwcx.	%3,0,%1							\n"
> +"	bne-	1b							\n"
> +"\t"	PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER "						\n"
> +"2:									\n"
> +	: "=&r" (prev)
> +	: "r" (&lock->val), "r"(old), "r" (new),
> +	  "i" (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) ? 1 : 0)
> +	: "cr0", "memory");

This is very similar to trylock_clear_tail_cpu(). So maybe it is worth having
some form of "test and set" primitive helper.

> +
> +	return prev;
> +}
> +
> +/* Take lock, preserving tail, cmpxchg with val (which must not be locked) */
> +static __always_inline int trylock_with_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> +{
> +	u32 newval = _Q_LOCKED_VAL | (val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK);
> +
> +	if (__trylock_cmpxchg(lock, val, newval) == val)
> +		return 1;
> +	else
> +		return 0;

same optional style nit: return __trylock_cmpxchg(lock, val, newval) == val

> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Publish our tail, replacing previous tail. Return previous value.
>   *
> @@ -115,6 +157,31 @@ static struct qnode *get_tail_qnode(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>  	BUG();
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool try_to_steal_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	int iters;
> +
> +	/* Attempt to steal the lock */
> +	for (;;) {
> +		u32 val = READ_ONCE(lock->val);
> +
> +		if (unlikely(!(val & _Q_LOCKED_VAL))) {
> +			if (trylock_with_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				return true;
> +			continue;
> +		}

The continue would bypass iters++/cpu_relax but the next time around
  if (unlikely(!(val & _Q_LOCKED_VAL))) {
should fail so everything should be fine?

> +
> +		cpu_relax();
> +
> +		iters++;
> +
> +		if (iters >= get_steal_spins())
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	struct qnodes *qnodesp;
> @@ -164,20 +231,39 @@ static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  		smp_rmb(); /* acquire barrier for the mcs lock */
>  	}
>  
> -	/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
> -	while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> -		cpu_relax();
> +	if (!MAYBE_STEALERS) {
> +		/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
> +		while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> +			cpu_relax();
>  
> -	/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> -	if ((val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) == tail) {
> -		if (trylock_clear_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> -			goto release;
> -		/* Another waiter must have enqueued */
> -	}
> +		/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> +		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) == tail) {
> +			if (trylock_clear_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				goto release;
> +			/* Another waiter must have enqueued. */
> +		}
> +
> +		/* We must be the owner, just set the lock bit and acquire */
> +		lock_set_locked(lock);
> +	} else {
> +again:
> +		/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
> +		while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> +			cpu_relax();
>  
> -	/* We must be the owner, just set the lock bit and acquire */
> -	lock_set_locked(lock);
> +		/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> +		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) == tail) {
> +			if (trylock_clear_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				goto release;
> +			/* Another waiter must have enqueued, or lock stolen. */
> +		} else {
> +			if (trylock_with_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				goto unlock_next;
> +		}
> +		goto again;
> +	}
>  
> +unlock_next:
>  	/* contended path; must wait for next != NULL (MCS protocol) */
>  	while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
>  		cpu_relax();
> @@ -197,6 +283,9 @@ static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  
>  void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
> +	if (try_to_steal_lock(lock))
> +		return;
> +
>  	queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(lock);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(queued_spin_lock_slowpath);
> @@ -207,3 +296,44 @@ void pv_spinlocks_init(void)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
> +static int steal_spins_set(void *data, u64 val)
> +{
> +	static DEFINE_MUTEX(lock);

I just want to check if it would be possible to get rid of the MAYBE_STEALERS
variable completely and do something like:

  bool maybe_stealers() { return STEAL_SPINS > 0; }

I guess based on the below code it wouldn't work, but I'm still not quite sure
why that is.

> +
> +	mutex_lock(&lock);
> +	if (val && !STEAL_SPINS) {
> +		MAYBE_STEALERS = true;
> +		/* wait for waiter to go away */
> +		synchronize_rcu();
> +		STEAL_SPINS = val;
> +	} else if (!val && STEAL_SPINS) {
> +		STEAL_SPINS = val;
> +		/* wait for all possible stealers to go away */
> +		synchronize_rcu();
> +		MAYBE_STEALERS = false;
> +	} else {
> +		STEAL_SPINS = val;
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&lock);

STEAL_SPINS is an int not a u64.

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int steal_spins_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> +{
> +	*val = STEAL_SPINS;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(fops_steal_spins, steal_spins_get, steal_spins_set, "%llu\n");
> +
> +static __init int spinlock_debugfs_init(void)
> +{
> +	debugfs_create_file("qspl_steal_spins", 0600, arch_debugfs_dir, NULL, &fops_steal_spins);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +device_initcall(spinlock_debugfs_init);
> +


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-10  0:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-28  6:31 [PATCH 00/17] powerpc: alternate queued spinlock implementation Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 01/17] powerpc/qspinlock: powerpc qspinlock implementation Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  1:52   ` Jordan NIethe
2022-08-10  6:48     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-11-10  0:35   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  6:37     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-11-10 11:44       ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-11-10  9:09     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 1a/17] powerpc/qspinlock: Prepare qspinlock code Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 02/17] powerpc/qspinlock: add mcs queueing for contended waiters Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  2:28   ` Jordan NIethe
2022-11-10  0:36   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  9:21     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 03/17] powerpc/qspinlock: use a half-word store to unlock to avoid larx/stcx Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  3:28   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:39   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  9:25     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 04/17] powerpc/qspinlock: convert atomic operations to assembly Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  3:54   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:39   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  8:36     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-11-10 11:48       ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-11-10  9:40     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 05/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow new waiters to steal the lock before queueing Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  4:31   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:40   ` Jordan Niethe [this message]
2022-11-10 10:54     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 06/17] powerpc/qspinlock: theft prevention to control latency Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  5:51   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:40   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 10:57     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 07/17] powerpc/qspinlock: store owner CPU in lock word Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  0:50   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:40   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 10:59     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 08/17] powerpc/qspinlock: paravirt yield to lock owner Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  2:01   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:41   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:13     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 09/17] powerpc/qspinlock: implement option to yield to previous node Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  2:07   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:41   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:14     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 10/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow stealing when head of queue yields Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:06   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:42   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:22     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 11/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow propagation of yield CPU down the queue Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:17   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-10-06 17:27   ` Laurent Dufour
2022-11-10  0:42   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:25     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 12/17] powerpc/qspinlock: add ability to prod new queue head CPU Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:22   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:42   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:32     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 13/17] powerpc/qspinlock: trylock and initial lock attempt may steal Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:32   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:35     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 14/17] powerpc/qspinlock: use spin_begin/end API Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:36   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:36     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 15/17] powerpc/qspinlock: reduce remote node steal spins Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:37     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 16/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow indefinite spinning on a preempted owner Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:49   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-09-22 15:02   ` Laurent Dufour
2022-09-23  8:16     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-11-10  0:44   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:38     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 17/17] powerpc/qspinlock: provide accounting and options for sleepy locks Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-15  1:11   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:44   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:41     ` Nicholas Piggin

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=5fdefbeaa6d81aa33c384c73e265049c43b70832.camel@gmail.com \
    --to=jniethe5@gmail.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    /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).