From: "Christoph Müllner" <christophm30@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock implementation
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:22:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHB2gtTmGt=V4cUgbt3zGgi+y5h0f5ON0n+MdRC8P=su670qhQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YHVQNSfblP6G0Kgl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:03 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:54:55PM +0200, Christoph Müllner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:33 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> > > My plan is to add a generic ticket-based lock, which can be selected at
> > > compile time. It'll have no architecture dependencies (though it'll
> > > likely have some hooks for architectures that can make this go faster).
> > > Users can then just pick which spinlock flavor they want, with the idea
> > > being that smaller systems will perform better with ticket locks and
> > > larger systems will perform better with queued locks. The main goal
> > > here is to give the less widely used architectures an easy way to have
> > > fair locks, as right now we've got a lot of code duplication because any
> > > architecture that wants ticket locks has to do it themselves.
> >
> > In the case of LL/SC sequences, we have a maximum of 16 instructions
> > on RISC-V. My concern with a pure-C implementation would be that
> > we cannot guarantee this (e.g. somebody wants to compile with -O0)
> > and I don't know of a way to abort the build in case this limit exceeds.
> > Therefore I have preferred inline assembly for OpenSBI (my initial idea
> > was to use closure-like LL/SC macros, where you can write the loop
> > in form of C code).
>
> For ticket locks you really only needs atomic_fetch_add() and
> smp_store_release() and an architectural guarantees that the
> atomic_fetch_add() has fwd progress under contention and that a sub-word
> store (through smp_store_release()) will fail the SC.
>
> Then you can do something like:
>
> void lock(atomic_t *lock)
> {
> u32 val = atomic_fetch_add(1<<16, lock); /* SC, gives us RCsc */
> u16 ticket = val >> 16;
>
> for (;;) {
> if (ticket == (u16)val)
> break;
> cpu_relax();
> val = atomic_read_acquire(lock);
> }
> }
>
> void unlock(atomic_t *lock)
> {
> u16 *ptr = (u16 *)lock + (!!__BIG_ENDIAN__);
> u32 val = atomic_read(lock);
>
> smp_store_release(ptr, (u16)val + 1);
> }
>
> That's _almost_ as simple as a test-and-set :-) It isn't quite optimal
> on x86 for not being allowed to use a memop on unlock, since its being
> forced into a load-store because of all the volatile, but whatever.
What about trylock()?
I.e. one could implement trylock() without a loop, by letting
trylock() fail if the SC fails.
That looks safe on first view, but nobody does this right now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-13 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-24 10:14 [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock implementation guoren
2021-03-24 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 12:10 ` Guo Ren
[not found] ` <CAM4kBBK7_s9U2vJbq68yC8WdDEfPQTaCOvn1xds3Si5B-Wpw+A@mail.gmail.com>
2021-03-24 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 12:24 ` Guo Ren
2021-03-24 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 12:28 ` Anup Patel
2021-03-24 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 12:53 ` Anup Patel
2021-04-11 21:11 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2021-04-12 13:32 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-12 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-12 21:21 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-12 17:33 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2021-04-12 21:54 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-13 8:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-13 8:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 2:26 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-14 7:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 10:16 ` [RFC][PATCH] locking: Generic ticket-lock Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 12:39 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-14 12:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 15:59 ` David Laight
2021-04-14 12:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-14 21:02 ` Stafford Horne
2021-04-14 20:47 ` Stafford Horne
2021-04-15 8:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-15 9:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-04-15 9:22 ` Will Deacon
2021-04-15 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-19 17:35 ` Will Deacon
2021-04-23 6:44 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2021-04-13 9:22 ` Christoph Müllner [this message]
2021-04-13 9:30 ` [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock implementation Catalin Marinas
2021-04-13 9:55 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-14 0:23 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-14 9:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-04-13 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-13 10:25 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-13 10:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-04-13 10:54 ` David Laight
2021-04-14 5:54 ` Guo Ren
2021-04-13 11:04 ` Christoph Müllner
2021-04-13 13:19 ` Guo Ren
2021-09-19 16:53 guoren
2021-09-25 14:47 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-21 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
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='CAHB2gtTmGt=V4cUgbt3zGgi+y5h0f5ON0n+MdRC8P=su670qhQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=christophm30@gmail.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=guoren@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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).