From: David Laight <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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 next 2/5] Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2026 23:01:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260306230131.0e9afd9d@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260306225150.93178-3-david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 22:51:47 +0000
david.laight.linux@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies to Yafang for mistyping his address...
> 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);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-06 23:01 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 ` [PATCH v3 next 2/5] Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight [this message]
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=20260306230131.0e9afd9d@pumpkin \
--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