From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@hp.com>,
linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
aquini@redhat.com, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:50:46 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5130F886.2070009@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1362161912.12277.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
On 03/01/2013 01:18 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 01:42 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 06:09 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> So I almost think that *everything* there in the semaphore code could
>>> be done under RCU. The actual spinlock doesn't seem to much matter, at
>>> least for semaphores. The semaphore values themselves seem to be
>>> protected by the atomic operations, but I might be wrong about that, I
>>> didn't even check.
>>
>> Checking try_atomic_semop and do_smart_update, it looks like neither
>> is using atomic operations. That part of the semaphore code would
>> still benefit from spinlocks.
>
> Agreed.
If we assume that calls to semctl with more than one semaphore
operator are rare, we could do something smarter here.
We could turn the outer spinlock into an rwlock. If we are
doing a call that modifies the outer structure, or multiple
semops at once, we take the lock exclusively.
If we want to do just one semop, we can take the lock in
shared mode. Then each semaphore inside would have its own
spinlock, and we lock just that one.
Of course, that would just add overhead to the case where
a semaphore block has just one semaphore in it, so I'm not
sure this would be worthwhile at all...
>> The way the code handles a whole batch of semops all at once,
>> potentially to multiple semaphores at once, and with the ability
>> to undo all of the operations, it looks like the spinlock will
>> still need to be per block of semaphores.
>>
>> I guess the code may still benefit from Michel's locking code,
>> after the permission stuff has been moved from under the spinlock.
>
> How about splitting ipc_lock()/ipc_lock_control() in two calls: one to
> obtain the ipc object (rcu_read_lock + idr_find), which can be called
> when performing the permissions and security checks, and another to
> obtain the ipcp->lock [q_]spinlock when necessary.
That is what I am working on now.
--
All rights reversed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-01 18:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-06 20:03 [PATCH -v5 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:04 ` [PATCH -v5 1/5] x86,smp: move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:06 ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 16:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 18:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14 0:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-14 1:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14 1:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-14 10:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-14 16:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-15 15:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-15 6:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-02-13 19:08 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 19:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 22:21 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 22:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 23:41 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-14 1:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14 1:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14 10:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-27 16:42 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-27 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-27 19:53 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-27 20:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-27 21:55 ` Rik van Riel
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwa0EjGG2NUDYVLVBmXJa2k81YiuNO2yggk=GLRQxhhUQ@mail.gmail.com>
2013-02-28 2:58 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 3:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 4:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-02-28 4:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 15:13 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 20:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 21:14 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 22:38 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 23:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-01 6:42 ` Rik van Riel
2013-03-01 18:18 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-03-01 18:50 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2013-03-01 18:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-06 20:04 ` [PATCH -v5 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:07 ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Implement " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:05 ` [PATCH -v5 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:08 ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Auto " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:06 ` [PATCH -v5 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:09 ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Keep " tip-bot for Eric Dumazet
2013-02-06 20:07 ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] x86,smp: limit spinlock delay on virtual machines Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 11:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-07 21:24 ` [PATCH fix " Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:10 ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Limit " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 11:25 ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] x86,smp: limit " Stefano Stabellini
2013-02-07 11:59 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-02-07 13:28 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:08 ` [PATCH -v5 6/5] x86,smp: add debugging code to track spinlock delay value Rik van Riel
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=5130F886.2070009@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=walken@google.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).