From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
To: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, julien.grall@citrix.com,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org, jbeulich@suse.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] arm: reduce power use by contented spin locks with WFE/SEV
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 12:29:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1438601359-2576-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> (raw)
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Instead of cpu_relax() while spinning and observing the ticket head,
introduce arch_lock_relax() which executes a WFE instruction. After
the ticket head is changed call arch_lock_signal() to execute an SEV
instruction (with the required DSB first) to wake any spinners.
This should improve power consumption when locks are contented and
spinning.
For consistency also move arch_lock_(acquire|release)_barrier to
asm/spinlock.h.
Booted the result on arm32 (Midway) and arm64 (Mustang). Build test
only on amd64.
Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
[ijc: add barrier, rename as arch_lock_*, move arch_lock_*_barrier, test]
Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
---
v2 (ijc):
Add dsb(ishst) to spin_relax.
s/spin_(relax|signal)/arch_lock_\1/
Move arch_lock_(acquire|release)_barrier to asm/spinlock.h
(dropped Andy's Reviewed-by due to this change)
In principal the SEV could be made unnecessary on arm64, but this
requires a new hook before the wait loop as well as changing
observe_head and _spin_unlock to use the Acquire/Release instructions
instead of the non-atomic loads and stores used today, which is a lot
more refactoring of the generic code than I think we can be bothered
with at this stage.
4.6: I'm in two minds about this, the lack of WFE in the ticket
spinlocks is not a regression (the old locks lacked them as well,
oops!). On the otherhand spinning like this isn't good. I think
overall I'm inclined to say this should wait for 4.7 but be a
candidate for backport to 4.6.1.
---
xen/common/spinlock.c | 5 +++--
xen/include/asm-arm/spinlock.h | 9 ++++++++-
xen/include/asm-arm/system.h | 3 ---
xen/include/asm-x86/spinlock.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
xen/include/asm-x86/system.h | 11 -----------
5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/spinlock.c b/xen/common/spinlock.c
index 29149d1..7f89694 100644
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ void _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
while ( tickets.tail != observe_head(&lock->tickets) )
{
LOCK_PROFILE_BLOCK;
- cpu_relax();
+ arch_lock_relax();
}
LOCK_PROFILE_GOT;
preempt_disable();
@@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ void _spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
preempt_enable();
LOCK_PROFILE_REL;
add_sized(&lock->tickets.head, 1);
+ arch_lock_signal();
}
void _spin_unlock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
@@ -228,7 +229,7 @@ void _spin_barrier(spinlock_t *lock)
if ( sample.head != sample.tail )
{
while ( observe_head(&lock->tickets) == sample.head )
- cpu_relax();
+ arch_lock_relax();
#ifdef LOCK_PROFILE
if ( lock->profile )
{
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/spinlock.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/spinlock.h
index 81955d1..8cdf9e1 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/spinlock.h
@@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
#ifndef __ASM_SPINLOCK_H
#define __ASM_SPINLOCK_H
-/* Nothing ARM specific. */
+#define arch_lock_acquire_barrier() smp_mb()
+#define arch_lock_release_barrier() smp_mb()
+
+#define arch_lock_relax() wfe()
+#define arch_lock_signal() do { \
+ dsb(ishst); \
+ sev(); \
+} while(0)
#endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/system.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/system.h
index f0e222f..2eb96e8 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/system.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/system.h
@@ -53,9 +53,6 @@
#define arch_fetch_and_add(x, v) __sync_fetch_and_add(x, v)
-#define arch_lock_acquire_barrier() smp_mb()
-#define arch_lock_release_barrier() smp_mb()
-
extern struct vcpu *__context_switch(struct vcpu *prev, struct vcpu *next);
#endif
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/spinlock.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/spinlock.h
index 7d69e75..70a85af 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/spinlock.h
@@ -4,4 +4,18 @@
#define _raw_read_unlock(l) \
asm volatile ( "lock; dec%z0 %0" : "+m" ((l)->lock) :: "memory" )
+/*
+ * On x86 the only reordering is of reads with older writes. In the
+ * lock case, the read in observe_head() can only be reordered with
+ * writes that precede it, and moving a write _into_ a locked section
+ * is OK. In the release case, the write in add_sized() can only be
+ * reordered with reads that follow it, and hoisting a read _into_ a
+ * locked region is OK.
+ */
+#define arch_lock_acquire_barrier() barrier()
+#define arch_lock_release_barrier() barrier()
+
+#define arch_lock_relax() cpu_relax()
+#define arch_lock_signal()
+
#endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/system.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/system.h
index 25a6a2a..9fb70f5 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/system.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/system.h
@@ -185,17 +185,6 @@ static always_inline unsigned long __xadd(
#define set_mb(var, value) do { xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
#define set_wmb(var, value) do { var = value; wmb(); } while (0)
-/*
- * On x86 the only reordering is of reads with older writes. In the
- * lock case, the read in observe_head() can only be reordered with
- * writes that precede it, and moving a write _into_ a locked section
- * is OK. In the release case, the write in add_sized() can only be
- * reordered with reads that follow it, and hoisting a read _into_ a
- * locked region is OK.
- */
-#define arch_lock_acquire_barrier() barrier()
-#define arch_lock_release_barrier() barrier()
-
#define local_irq_disable() asm volatile ( "cli" : : : "memory" )
#define local_irq_enable() asm volatile ( "sti" : : : "memory" )
--
2.1.4
next reply other threads:[~2015-08-03 11:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-03 11:29 Ian Campbell [this message]
2015-08-03 11:51 ` [PATCH v2] arm: reduce power use by contented spin locks with WFE/SEV Stefano Stabellini
2015-08-03 11:58 ` Ian Campbell
2015-08-03 12:00 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-08-11 15:07 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-15 11:17 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-15 10:28 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-15 10:39 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-15 11:17 ` Ian Campbell
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=1438601359-2576-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--to=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=julien.grall@citrix.com \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).