From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qspinlock: Optimize pending state waiting for unlock
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 11:03:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y7agecsIPC0r/OXB@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTT4yaH1i7zmKNwzt8OK1frFvre09wwNGABBo_3gC0pjBw@mail.gmail.com>
* Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:19 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> The situation is the SMT scenarios in the same core. Not an entering
> > > > >> low-power state situation. Of course, the granularity between cores is
> > > > >> "cacheline", but the granularity between SMT hw threads of the same
> > > > >> core could be "byte" which internal LSU handles. For example, when a
> > > > >> hw-thread yields the resources of the core to other hw-threads, this
> > > > >> patch could help the hw-thread stay in the sleep state and prevent it
> > > > >> from being woken up by other hw-threads xchg_tail.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Finally, from the software semantic view, does the patch make it more
> > > > >> accurate? (We don't care about the tail here.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the clarification.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not arguing for the simplification part. I just want to clarify
> > > > > my limited understanding of how the CPU hardware are actually dealing
> > > > > with these conditions.
> > > > >
> > > > > With that, I am fine with this patch. It would be nice if you can
> > > > > elaborate a bit more in your commit log.
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > BTW, have you actually observe any performance improvement with this patch?
> > > Not yet. I'm researching how the hardware could satisfy qspinlock
> > > better. Here are three points I concluded:
> > > 1. Atomic forward progress guarantee: Prevent unnecessary LL/SC
> > > retry, which may cause expensive bus transactions when crossing the
> > > NUMA nodes.
> > > 2. Sub-word atomic primitive: Enable freedom from interference
> > > between locked, pending, and tail.
> > > 3. Load-cond primitive: Prevent processor from wasting loop
> > > operations for detection.
> >
> > As to this patch, please send a -v2 version of this patch that has this
> > discussion & explanation included in the changelog, as requested by Waiman.
> Done
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230105021952.3090070-1-guoren@kernel.org/
Applied to tip:locking/core for a v6.3 merge, thanks!
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-05 10:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-24 12:05 [PATCH] locking/qspinlock: Optimize pending state waiting for unlock guoren
2022-12-25 1:55 ` Waiman Long
2022-12-25 2:57 ` Guo Ren
2022-12-25 3:29 ` Waiman Long
2022-12-25 3:30 ` Waiman Long
2022-12-25 11:59 ` Guo Ren
2023-01-04 20:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-01-05 2:31 ` Guo Ren
2023-01-05 10:03 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=Y7agecsIPC0r/OXB@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=guoren@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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