From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'peterz@infradead.org'" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"'mingo@redhat.com'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"'will@kernel.org'" <will@kernel.org>,
"'boqun.feng@gmail.com'" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"'xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com'" <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"'virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org'"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH next 4/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise per-cpu data accesses.
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 11:35:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4b9da867c24f4ff990851050c8f61515@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZY/6YCNJ7tSCmiGo@gmail.com>
From: Ingo Molnar
> Sent: 30 December 2023 11:09
>
>
> * Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/29/23 15:57, David Laight wrote:
> > > this_cpu_ptr() is rather more expensive than raw_cpu_read() since
> > > the latter can use an 'offset from register' (%gs for x86-84).
> > >
> > > Add a 'self' field to 'struct optimistic_spin_node' that can be
> > > read with raw_cpu_read(), initialise on first call.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > index 9bb3a077ba92..b60b0add0161 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
> > > */
> > > struct optimistic_spin_node {
> > > - struct optimistic_spin_node *next, *prev;
> > > + struct optimistic_spin_node *self, *next, *prev;
> > > int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> > > int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> > > };
> > > @@ -93,12 +93,16 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
> > > bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> > > {
> > > - struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> > > + struct optimistic_spin_node *node = raw_cpu_read(osq_node.self);
> >
> > My gcc 11 compiler produces the following x86-64 code:
> >
> > 92 struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> > 0x0000000000000029 <+25>: mov %rcx,%rdx
> > 0x000000000000002c <+28>: add %gs:0x0(%rip),%rdx # 0x34
> > <osq_lock+36>
> >
> > Which looks pretty optimized for me. Maybe older compiler may generate more
> > complex code. However, I do have some doubt as to the benefit of this patch
> > at the expense of making the code a bit more complex.
My changed code is one instruction shorter!
18: 65 48 8b 15 00 00 00 mov %gs:0x0(%rip),%rdx # 20 <osq_lock+0x20>
1f: 00
1c: R_X86_64_PC32 .data..percpu..shared_aligned-0x4
However is might have one less cache line miss.
> GCC-11 is plenty of a look-back window in terms of compiler efficiency:
> latest enterprise distros use GCC-11 or newer, while recent desktop
> distros use GCC-13. Anything older won't matter, because no major
> distribution is going to use new kernels with old compilers.
There must be a difference in the header files as well.
Possibly forced by the older compiler I'm using (7.5 from Ubuntu 18.04).
But maybe based on some config option.
I'm seeing this_cpu_ptr(&xxx) converted to per_cpu_ptr(&xxx, smp_processor_id())
which necessitates an array lookup (indexed by cpu number).
Whereas I think you are seeing it implemented as
raw_cpu_read(per_cpu_data_base) + offset_to(xxx)
So the old code generates (after the prologue):
10: 49 89 fd mov %rdi,%r13
13: 49 c7 c4 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%r12
16: R_X86_64_32S .data..percpu..shared_aligned
1a: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1f <osq_lock+0x1f>
1b: R_X86_64_PC32 debug_smp_processor_id-0x4
1f: 89 c0 mov %eax,%eax
21: 48 8b 1c c5 00 00 00 mov 0x0(,%rax,8),%rbx
28: 00
25: R_X86_64_32S __per_cpu_offset
29: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 2e <osq_lock+0x2e>
2a: R_X86_64_PC32 debug_smp_processor_id-0x4
2e: 4c 01 e3 add %r12,%rbx
31: 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%eax
34: c7 43 10 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,0x10(%rbx)
3b: 48 c7 03 00 00 00 00 movq $0x0,(%rbx)
42: 89 43 14 mov %eax,0x14(%rbx)
45: 41 87 45 00 xchg %eax,0x0(%r13)
I was also surprised that smp_processor_id() is a real function rather
than an offset from %gs.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-30 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-29 20:51 [PATCH next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
2023-12-29 20:53 ` [PATCH next 1/5] locking/osq_lock: Move the definition of optimistic_spin_node into osf_lock.c David Laight
2023-12-30 1:59 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-29 20:54 ` [PATCH next 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid dirtying the local cpu's 'node' in the osq_lock() fast path David Laight
2023-12-29 20:56 ` [PATCH next 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Clarify osq_wait_next() David Laight
2023-12-29 22:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-12-30 2:54 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-29 20:57 ` [PATCH next 4/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise per-cpu data accesses David Laight
2023-12-30 3:08 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 11:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-30 11:35 ` David Laight [this message]
2023-12-31 3:04 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-31 10:36 ` David Laight
2023-12-30 20:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-30 22:47 ` David Laight
2023-12-30 20:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-12-30 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-12-31 11:56 ` David Laight
2023-12-31 11:41 ` David Laight
2023-12-29 20:58 ` [PATCH next 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check David Laight
2023-12-30 3:13 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 15:57 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 22:37 ` David Laight
2023-12-29 22:11 ` [PATCH next 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid dirtying the local cpu's 'node' in the osq_lock() fast path David Laight
2023-12-30 3:20 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-30 15:49 ` David Laight
2024-01-02 18:53 ` Boqun Feng
2024-01-02 23:32 ` David Laight
2023-12-30 19:40 ` [PATCH next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code Linus Torvalds
2023-12-30 22:39 ` David Laight
2023-12-31 2:14 ` Waiman Long
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=4b9da867c24f4ff990851050c8f61515@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=zengheng4@huawei.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