From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Opportunistically defer kicking to unlock time
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:18:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A7147B.8020406@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150715100309.GJ2859@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 07/15/2015 06:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> +static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>> {
>> struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;
>>
>> + if (xchg(&pn->state, vcpu_running) == vcpu_running)
>> + return;
>> +
>> /*
>> + * Kicking the next node at lock time can actually be a bit faster
>> + * than doing it at unlock time because the critical section time
>> + * overlaps with the wakeup latency of the next node. However, if the
>> + * VM is too overcommmitted, it can happen that we need to kick the
>> + * CPU again at unlock time (double-kick). To avoid that and also to
>> + * fully utilize the kick-ahead functionality at unlock time,
>> + * the kicking will be deferred under either one of the following
>> + * 2 conditions:
>> *
>> + * 1) The VM guest has too few vCPUs that kick-ahead is not even
>> + * enabled. In this case, the chance of double-kick will be
>> + * higher.
>> + * 2) The node after the next one is also in the halted state.
>> *
>> + * In this case, the hashed flag is set to indicate that hashed
>> + * table has been filled and _Q_SLOW_VAL is set.
>> */
>> - if (xchg(&pn->state, vcpu_running) == vcpu_halted) {
>> - pvstat_inc(pvstat_lock_kick);
>> - pv_kick(pn->cpu);
>> + if ((!pv_kick_ahead || pv_get_kick_node(pn, 1))&&
>> + (xchg(&pn->hashed, 1) == 0)) {
>> + struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * As this is the same vCPU that will check the _Q_SLOW_VAL
>> + * value and the hash table later on at unlock time, no atomic
>> + * instruction is needed.
>> + */
>> + WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
>> + (void)pv_hash(lock, pn);
>> + return;
>> }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Kicking the vCPU even if it is not really halted is safe.
>> + */
>> + pvstat_inc(pvstat_lock_kick);
>> + pv_kick(pn->cpu);
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -513,6 +545,13 @@ static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>> cpu_relax();
>> }
>>
>> + if (!lp&& (xchg(&pn->hashed, 1) == 1))
>> + /*
>> + * The hashed table& _Q_SLOW_VAL had been filled
>> + * by the lock holder.
>> + */
>> + lp = (struct qspinlock **)-1;
>> +
>> if (!lp) { /* ONCE */
>> lp = pv_hash(lock, pn);
>> /*
> *groan*, so you complained the previous version of this patch was too
> complex, but let me say I vastly preferred it to this one :/
I said it was complex as maintaining a tri-state variable needed more
thought than 2 bi-state variables. I can revert it back to the tri-state
variable as doing an unconditional kick in unlock simplifies the code at
pv_wait_head().
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-16 2:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-15 2:13 [PATCH 0/6 v2] locking/qspinlock: Enhance pvqspinlock performance Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with _Q_SLOW_VAL Waiman Long
2015-07-15 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 0:18 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 5:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 14:07 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 15:04 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 15:10 ` Will Deacon
2015-08-03 16:59 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/Documentation: Clarify failed cmpxchg( ) memory ordering semantics tip-bot for Will Deacon
2015-08-03 17:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Add pending bit support Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Collect slowpath lock statistics Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Waiman Long
2015-07-15 9:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 2:01 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 5:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 14:51 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Opportunistically defer kicking to unlock time Waiman Long
2015-07-15 6:14 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-07-15 10:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 2:18 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2015-07-16 5:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Queue node adaptive spinning Waiman Long
2015-07-15 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 2:13 ` 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=55A7147B.8020406@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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