From: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 00:45:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTRN2FLUbJzwsgitMg2j3sMRcq5a1Gm5dTQivuiakmAdOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d0dbaa0-1f96-470c-0ed0-04f6827ea384@redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:09 PM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/21 11:13 PM, Guo Ren wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:01:41PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> >>> u32 a = 0x55aa66bb;
> >>> u16 *ptr = &a;
> >>>
> >>> CPU0 CPU1
> >>> ========= =========
> >>> xchg16(ptr, new) while(1)
> >>> WRITE_ONCE(*(ptr + 1), x);
> >>>
> >>> When we use lr.w/sc.w implement xchg16, it'll cause CPU0 deadlock.
> >> Then I think your LL/SC is broken.
> >>
> >> That also means you really don't want to build super complex locking
> >> primitives on top, because that live-lock will percolate through.
> > Do you mean the below implementation has live-lock risk?
> > +static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
> > +{
> > + u32 old, new, val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + new = (val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
> > + old = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, new);
> > + if (old == val)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + val = old;
> > + }
> > + return old;
> > +}
> If there is a continuous stream of incoming spinlock takers, it is
> possible that some cpus may have to wait a long time to set the tail
> right. However, this should only happen on artificial workload. I doubt
> it will happen with real workload or with limit number of cpus.
Yes, I think is ok for LR/SC in riscv, becasue
CPU0 LR
CPU1 LR
CPU0 SC //success
CPU1 SC //fail
or
CPU0 LR
CPU1 LR
CPU1 SC //success
CPU0 SC //fail
So always one store condition would success. I think it's OK.
> >
> >> Step 1 would be to get your architecute fixed such that it can provide
> >> fwd progress guarantees for LL/SC. Otherwise there's absolutely no point
> >> in building complex systems with it.
> > Quote Waiman's comment [1] on xchg16 optimization:
> >
> > "This optimization is needed to make the qspinlock achieve performance
> > parity with ticket spinlock at light load."
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/1429901803-29771-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com/
> >
> > So for a non-xhg16 machine:
> > - ticket-lock for small numbers of CPUs
> > - qspinlock for large numbers of CPUs
> >
> > Okay, I'll put all of them into the next patch :P
> >
> It is true that qspinlock may not offer much advantage when the number
> of cpus is small. It shines for systems with many cpus. You may use
> NR_CPUS to determine if the default should be ticket or qspinlock with
> user override. To determine the right NR_CPUS threshold, you may need to
> run on real SMP RISCV systems to find out.
I Agree
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-05 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-27 18:06 [PATCH v4 0/4] riscv: Add qspinlock/qrwlock guoren
2021-03-27 18:06 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] riscv: cmpxchg.h: Cleanup unused code guoren
2021-03-27 18:06 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] riscv: cmpxchg.h: Merge macros guoren
2021-03-27 21:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-28 1:50 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-27 18:06 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32 guoren
2021-03-27 18:43 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-28 1:48 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-29 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-29 9:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-29 11:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-29 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-29 12:52 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-29 13:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-30 2:26 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-30 5:51 ` Anup Patel
2021-03-30 6:26 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-30 7:11 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-31 4:18 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-31 5:33 ` Paul Campbell
2021-04-05 16:12 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-31 6:44 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-31 7:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-29 11:19 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-29 11:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-29 12:01 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-29 12:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-30 3:13 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-30 4:54 ` Anup Patel
2021-03-30 6:27 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-30 8:31 ` David Laight
2021-03-30 14:09 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-31 14:47 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-05 16:45 ` Guo Ren [this message]
2021-03-30 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-30 22:35 ` Stafford Horne
2021-03-31 7:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-31 12:31 ` Stafford Horne
2021-03-31 15:10 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-06 8:51 ` Stafford Horne
2021-04-06 3:50 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-06 8:56 ` Stafford Horne
2021-04-07 8:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-04-07 11:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 11:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-04-07 12:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-05 16:40 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-31 15:22 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-06 7:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 9:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-07 14:29 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-07 14:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-07 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 16:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 15:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 19:50 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-06 17:24 ` Boqun Feng
2021-04-07 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-29 12:13 ` Anup Patel
2021-03-29 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-27 18:06 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] riscv: Convert custom spinlock/rwlock to generic qspinlock/qrwlock guoren
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=CAJF2gTRN2FLUbJzwsgitMg2j3sMRcq5a1Gm5dTQivuiakmAdOQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=guoren@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-csky@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).