From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754662AbcAEVSq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:18:46 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:47038 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751970AbcAEVSm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:18:42 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:18:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: ling.ma.program@gmail.com
Cc: waiman.long@hpe.com, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, ling.ml@alibaba-inc.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] alispinlock: acceleration from lock integration on
 multi-core platform
Message-ID: <20160105211834.GR6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <yes>
 <1451549374-30875-1-git-send-email-ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1451549374-30875-1-git-send-email-ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 04:09:34PM +0800, ling.ma.program@gmail.com wrote:
> +void alispinlock(struct ali_spinlock *lock, struct ali_spinlock_info *ali)
> +{
> +	struct ali_spinlock_info *next, *old;
> +
> +	ali->next = NULL;
> +	ali->locked = 1;
> +	old = xchg(&lock->lock_p, ali);
> +
> +	/* If NULL we are the first one */
> +	if (old) {
> +		WRITE_ONCE(old->next, ali);
> +		if(ali->flags & ALI_LOCK_FREE)
> +			return;
> +		while((READ_ONCE(ali->locked)))
> +			cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	old = READ_ONCE(lock->lock_p);
> +
> +	/* Handle all pending works */
> +repeat:	
> +	if(old == ali)
> +		goto end;
> +
> +	while (!(next = READ_ONCE(ali->next)))
> +		cpu_relax();
> +	
> +	ali->fn(ali->para);
> +	ali->locked = 0;
> +
> +	if(old != next) {
> +		while (!(ali = READ_ONCE(next->next)))
> +			cpu_relax();
> +		next->fn(next->para);
> +		next->locked = 0;
> +		goto repeat;
> +		
> +	} else
> +		ali = next;

So I have a whole bunch of problems with this thing.. For one I object
to this being called a lock. Its much more like an async work queue like
thing.

It suffers the typical problems all those constructs do; namely it
wrecks accountability.

But here that is compounded by the fact that you inject other people's
work into 'your' lock region, thereby bloating lock hold times. Worse,
afaict (from a quick reading) there really isn't a bound on the amount
of work you inject.

This will completely wreck scheduling latency. At the very least the
callback loop should have a need_resched() test on, but even that will
not work if this has IRQs disabled.


And while its a cute collapse of an MCS lock and lockless list style
work queue (MCS after all is a lockless list), saving a few cycles from
the naive spinlock+llist implementation of the same thing, I really
do not see enough justification for any of this.