From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A348C43381 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:58:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BAE20851 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:58:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731221AbfBRO6g (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:58:36 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:32874 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726302AbfBRO6f (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:58:35 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B193A78; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:58:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from fuggles.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F1D53F675; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:58:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:58:20 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, uclinux-h8-devel@lists.sourceforge.jp, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, nios2-dev@lists.rocketboards.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Davidlohr Bueso , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Tim Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 0 Message-ID: <20190218145820.GA16091@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1550095217-12047-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20190214103715.GI32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190215184056.GC15084@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+86 (6f28e57d73f2) () Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 01:58:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > On 02/15/2019 01:40 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:37:15AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:00:14PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > >>> v4: > >>> - Remove rwsem-spinlock.c and make all archs use rwsem-xadd.c. > >>> > >>> v3: > >>> - Optimize __down_read_trylock() for the uncontended case as suggested > >>> by Linus. > >>> > >>> v2: > >>> - Add patch 2 to optimize __down_read_trylock() as suggested by PeterZ. > >>> - Update performance test data in patch 1. > >>> > >>> The goal of this patchset is to remove the architecture specific files > >>> for rwsem-xadd to make it easer to add enhancements in the later rwsem > >>> patches. It also removes the legacy rwsem-spinlock.c file and make all > >>> the architectures use one single implementation of rwsem - rwsem-xadd.c. > >>> > >>> Waiman Long (3): > >>> locking/rwsem: Remove arch specific rwsem files > >>> locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem-spinlock.c & use rwsem-xadd.c for all > >>> archs > >>> locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock() > >> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) > >> > >> with the caveat that I'm happy to exchange patch 3 back to my earlier > >> suggestion in case Will expesses concerns wrt the ARM64 performance of > >> Linus' suggestion. > > Right, the current proposal doesn't work well for us, unfortunately. Which > > was your earlier suggestion? > > > > Will > > In my posting yesterday, I showed that most of the trylocks done were > actually uncontended. Assuming that pattern hold for the most of the > workloads, it will not that bad after all. That's fair enough; if you're going to sit in a tight trylock() loop like the benchmark does, then you're much better off just calling lock() if you care at all about scalability. Will