From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Remove arch specific rwsem files
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 21:08:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a610aeb2-b1cb-0d57-8078-97d1051481f9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1549850450-10171-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
On 02/10/2019 09:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> As the generic rwsem-xadd code is using the appropriate acquire and
> release versions of the atomic operations, the arch specific rwsem.h
> files will not be that much faster than the generic code as long as the
> atomic functions are properly implemented. So we can remove those arch
> specific rwsem.h and stop building asm/rwsem.h to reduce maintenance
> effort.
>
> Currently, only x86, alpha and ia64 have implemented architecture
> specific fast paths. I don't have access to alpha and ia64 systems for
> testing, but they are legacy systems that are not likely to be updated
> to the latest kernel anyway.
>
> By using a rwsem microbenchmark, the total locking rates on a 4-socket
> 56-core 112-thread x86-64 system before and after the patch were as
> follows (mixed means equal # of read and write locks):
>
> Before Patch After Patch
> # of Threads wlock rlock mixed wlock rlock mixed
> ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
> 1 27,373 29,409 28,170 28,773 30,164 29,276
> 2 7,697 14,922 1,703 7,435 15,167 1,729
> 4 6,987 14,285 1,490 7,181 14,438 1,330
> 8 6,650 13,652 761 6,918 13,796 718
> 16 6,434 15,729 713 6,554 16,030 625
> 32 5,590 15,312 552 6,124 15,344 471
> 64 5,980 15,478 61 5,668 15,509 58
>
> There were some run-to-run variations for the multi-thread tests. For
> x86-64, using the generic C code fast path seems to be a liitle bit
> faster than the assembly version especially for read-lock and when lock
> contention is low. Looking at the assembly version of the fast paths,
> there are assembly to/from C code wrappers that save and restore all
> the callee-clobbered registers (7 registers on x86-64). The assembly
> generated from the generic C code doesn't need to do that. That may
> explain the slight performance gain here.
>
> The generic asm rwsem.h can also be merged into kernel/locking/rwsem.h
> as no other code other than those under kernel/locking needs to access
> the internal rwsem macros and functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
I have decided to break the rwsem patchset that I sent out on last
Thursday into 3 parts. This patch is part 0 as it touches a number of
arch specific files and so have the widest distribution. I would like to
get it merged first. Part 1 will be patches 1-10 (except 4) of my
original rwsem patchset. This part moves things around, adds more
debugging capability and lays the ground work for the next part. Part 2
will contains the remaining patches which are the real beef of the whole
patchset.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-11 2:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-11 2:00 [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Remove arch specific rwsem files Waiman Long
2019-02-11 2:08 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-02-11 7:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-11 10:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-11 10:52 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-11 10:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-11 13:32 ` Waiman Long
2019-02-11 9:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 9:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 16:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-02-11 17:04 ` 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=a610aeb2-b1cb-0d57-8078-97d1051481f9@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@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).