public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: david.laight.linux@gmail.com
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Yafang Shao <loaor.shao@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 next 2/5] Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check
Date: Fri,  6 Mar 2026 22:51:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260306225150.93178-3-david.laight.linux@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260306225150.93178-1-david.laight.linux@gmail.com>

From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>

The vcpu_is_preempted() test stops osq_lock() spinning if a virtual
  CPU is no longer running.
Although patched out for bare-metal, the code still needs the CPU number.
Reading this from 'prev->cpu' is a pretty much guaranteed have a cache miss
when osq_unlock() is waking up the next cpu.

Instead save 'prev->cpu' in 'node->prev_cpu' and use that value instead.
Update in the osq_lock() 'unqueue' path when 'node->prev' is changed.

Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 96c6094157b5..0e1c7d11b6c0 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ struct optimistic_spin_node {
 	struct optimistic_spin_node *next, *prev;
 	int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
 	int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
+	int prev_cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
 };
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node, osq_node);
@@ -29,9 +30,9 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
 	return cpu_nr + 1;
 }
 
-static inline int node_cpu(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
+static inline int prev_cpu_nr(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
 {
-	return node->cpu - 1;
+	return READ_ONCE(node->prev_cpu) - 1;
 }
 
 static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
@@ -110,6 +111,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
 		return true;
 
+	WRITE_ONCE(node->prev_cpu, old);
 	prev = decode_cpu(old);
 	node->prev = prev;
 	node->locked = 0;
@@ -144,7 +146,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	 * polling, be careful.
 	 */
 	if (smp_cond_load_relaxed(&node->locked, VAL || need_resched() ||
-				  vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev))))
+				  vcpu_is_preempted(prev_cpu_nr(node))))
 		return true;
 
 	/* unqueue */
@@ -201,6 +203,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	 * it will wait in Step-A.
 	 */
 
+	WRITE_ONCE(next->prev_cpu, prev->cpu);
 	WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
 	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, next);
 
-- 
2.39.5


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-03-06 22:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-06 22:51 [PATCH v3 next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 1/5] Only clear node->locked in the slow osq_lock() path david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01   ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` david.laight.linux [this message]
2026-03-06 23:01   ` [PATCH v3 next 2/5] Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03   ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 3/5] Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01   ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03   ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 4/5] Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr() david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01   ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03   ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 5/5] Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:04   ` David Laight
2026-03-07  0:06   ` Linus Torvalds
2026-03-07 11:32     ` David Laight
2026-03-11 19:27   ` Waiman Long
2026-03-11 19:40     ` Waiman Long
2026-03-11 21:50     ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight

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=20260306225150.93178-3-david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=loaor.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.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