All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
	Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
	Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: remove spin_lock_flags() etc
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:01:41 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1c6ad7e.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXbAPIm47WwpYYup@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As this is all dead code, just remove it and the helper functions built
>> > > > > around it. For arch/ia64, the inline asm could be cleaned up, but
>> > > > > it seems safer to leave it untouched.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > >
>> > > > Does that mean we can also remove the GENERIC_LOCKBREAK config option
>> > > > from the Kconfig files as well?
>> > >
>> > >  I couldn't figure this out.
>> > >
>> > > What I see is that the only architectures setting GENERIC_LOCKBREAK are
>> > > nds32, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh and sparc64, while the only architectures
>> > > implementing arch_spin_is_contended() are arm32, csky and ia64.
>> > >
>> > > The part I don't understand is whether the option actually does anything
>> > > useful any more after commit d89c70356acf ("locking/core: Remove break_lock
>> > > field when CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y").
>> >
>> > Urgh, what a mess.. AFAICT there's still code in
>> > kernel/locking/spinlock.c that relies on it. Specifically when
>> > GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y we seem to create _lock*() variants that are
>> > basically TaS locks which drop preempt/irq disable while spinning.
>> >
>> > Anybody having this on and not having native TaS locks is in for a rude
>> > surprise I suppose... sparc64 being the obvious candidate there :/
>> 
>> Is this a problem on s390 and powerpc, those two being the ones
>> that matter in practice?
>> 
>> On s390, we pick between the cmpxchg() based directed-yield when
>> running on virtualized CPUs, and a normal qspinlock when running on a
>> dedicated CPU.
>> 
>> On PowerPC, we pick at compile-time between either the qspinlock
>> (default-enabled on Book3S-64, i.e. all server chips) or a ll/sc based
>> spinlock plus vm_yield() (default on embedded and 32-bit mac).
>
> Urgh, yeah, so this crud undermines the whole point of having a fair
> lock. I'm thinking s390 and Power want to have this fixed.

Our Kconfig has:

  config GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
  	bool
  	default y
  	depends on SMP && PREEMPTION

And we have exactly one defconfig that enables both SMP and PREEMPT,
arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/ge_imp3a_defconfig, which is some ~10 year old
PCI card embedded thing I've never heard of. High chance anyone who has
those is not running upstream kernels on them.

So I think we'd be happy for you rip GENERIC_LOCKBREAK out, it's almost
entirely unused on powerpc anyway.

cheers

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
	Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
	Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: remove spin_lock_flags() etc
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:01:41 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1c6ad7e.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXbAPIm47WwpYYup@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As this is all dead code, just remove it and the helper functions built
>> > > > > around it. For arch/ia64, the inline asm could be cleaned up, but
>> > > > > it seems safer to leave it untouched.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > >
>> > > > Does that mean we can also remove the GENERIC_LOCKBREAK config option
>> > > > from the Kconfig files as well?
>> > >
>> > >  I couldn't figure this out.
>> > >
>> > > What I see is that the only architectures setting GENERIC_LOCKBREAK are
>> > > nds32, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh and sparc64, while the only architectures
>> > > implementing arch_spin_is_contended() are arm32, csky and ia64.
>> > >
>> > > The part I don't understand is whether the option actually does anything
>> > > useful any more after commit d89c70356acf ("locking/core: Remove break_lock
>> > > field when CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y").
>> >
>> > Urgh, what a mess.. AFAICT there's still code in
>> > kernel/locking/spinlock.c that relies on it. Specifically when
>> > GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y we seem to create _lock*() variants that are
>> > basically TaS locks which drop preempt/irq disable while spinning.
>> >
>> > Anybody having this on and not having native TaS locks is in for a rude
>> > surprise I suppose... sparc64 being the obvious candidate there :/
>> 
>> Is this a problem on s390 and powerpc, those two being the ones
>> that matter in practice?
>> 
>> On s390, we pick between the cmpxchg() based directed-yield when
>> running on virtualized CPUs, and a normal qspinlock when running on a
>> dedicated CPU.
>> 
>> On PowerPC, we pick at compile-time between either the qspinlock
>> (default-enabled on Book3S-64, i.e. all server chips) or a ll/sc based
>> spinlock plus vm_yield() (default on embedded and 32-bit mac).
>
> Urgh, yeah, so this crud undermines the whole point of having a fair
> lock. I'm thinking s390 and Power want to have this fixed.

Our Kconfig has:

  config GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
  	bool
  	default y
  	depends on SMP && PREEMPTION

And we have exactly one defconfig that enables both SMP and PREEMPT,
arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/ge_imp3a_defconfig, which is some ~10 year old
PCI card embedded thing I've never heard of. High chance anyone who has
those is not running upstream kernels on them.

So I think we'd be happy for you rip GENERIC_LOCKBREAK out, it's almost
entirely unused on powerpc anyway.

cheers

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org
Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH] locking: remove spin_lock_flags() etc
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:01:41 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1c6ad7e.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXbAPIm47WwpYYup@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As this is all dead code, just remove it and the helper functions built
>> > > > > around it. For arch/ia64, the inline asm could be cleaned up, but
>> > > > > it seems safer to leave it untouched.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > >
>> > > > Does that mean we can also remove the GENERIC_LOCKBREAK config option
>> > > > from the Kconfig files as well?
>> > >
>> > >  I couldn't figure this out.
>> > >
>> > > What I see is that the only architectures setting GENERIC_LOCKBREAK are
>> > > nds32, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh and sparc64, while the only architectures
>> > > implementing arch_spin_is_contended() are arm32, csky and ia64.
>> > >
>> > > The part I don't understand is whether the option actually does anything
>> > > useful any more after commit d89c70356acf ("locking/core: Remove break_lock
>> > > field when CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y").
>> >
>> > Urgh, what a mess.. AFAICT there's still code in
>> > kernel/locking/spinlock.c that relies on it. Specifically when
>> > GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y we seem to create _lock*() variants that are
>> > basically TaS locks which drop preempt/irq disable while spinning.
>> >
>> > Anybody having this on and not having native TaS locks is in for a rude
>> > surprise I suppose... sparc64 being the obvious candidate there :/
>> 
>> Is this a problem on s390 and powerpc, those two being the ones
>> that matter in practice?
>> 
>> On s390, we pick between the cmpxchg() based directed-yield when
>> running on virtualized CPUs, and a normal qspinlock when running on a
>> dedicated CPU.
>> 
>> On PowerPC, we pick at compile-time between either the qspinlock
>> (default-enabled on Book3S-64, i.e. all server chips) or a ll/sc based
>> spinlock plus vm_yield() (default on embedded and 32-bit mac).
>
> Urgh, yeah, so this crud undermines the whole point of having a fair
> lock. I'm thinking s390 and Power want to have this fixed.

Our Kconfig has:

  config GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
  	bool
  	default y
  	depends on SMP && PREEMPTION

And we have exactly one defconfig that enables both SMP and PREEMPT,
arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/ge_imp3a_defconfig, which is some ~10 year old
PCI card embedded thing I've never heard of. High chance anyone who has
those is not running upstream kernels on them.

So I think we'd be happy for you rip GENERIC_LOCKBREAK out, it's almost
entirely unused on powerpc anyway.

cheers

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
	Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
	Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: remove spin_lock_flags() etc
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 12:01:41 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1c6ad7e.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXbAPIm47WwpYYup@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As this is all dead code, just remove it and the helper functions built
>> > > > > around it. For arch/ia64, the inline asm could be cleaned up, but
>> > > > > it seems safer to leave it untouched.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> > > >
>> > > > Does that mean we can also remove the GENERIC_LOCKBREAK config option
>> > > > from the Kconfig files as well?
>> > >
>> > >  I couldn't figure this out.
>> > >
>> > > What I see is that the only architectures setting GENERIC_LOCKBREAK are
>> > > nds32, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh and sparc64, while the only architectures
>> > > implementing arch_spin_is_contended() are arm32, csky and ia64.
>> > >
>> > > The part I don't understand is whether the option actually does anything
>> > > useful any more after commit d89c70356acf ("locking/core: Remove break_lock
>> > > field when CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y").
>> >
>> > Urgh, what a mess.. AFAICT there's still code in
>> > kernel/locking/spinlock.c that relies on it. Specifically when
>> > GENERIC_LOCKBREAK=y we seem to create _lock*() variants that are
>> > basically TaS locks which drop preempt/irq disable while spinning.
>> >
>> > Anybody having this on and not having native TaS locks is in for a rude
>> > surprise I suppose... sparc64 being the obvious candidate there :/
>> 
>> Is this a problem on s390 and powerpc, those two being the ones
>> that matter in practice?
>> 
>> On s390, we pick between the cmpxchg() based directed-yield when
>> running on virtualized CPUs, and a normal qspinlock when running on a
>> dedicated CPU.
>> 
>> On PowerPC, we pick at compile-time between either the qspinlock
>> (default-enabled on Book3S-64, i.e. all server chips) or a ll/sc based
>> spinlock plus vm_yield() (default on embedded and 32-bit mac).
>
> Urgh, yeah, so this crud undermines the whole point of having a fair
> lock. I'm thinking s390 and Power want to have this fixed.

Our Kconfig has:

  config GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
  	bool
  	default y
  	depends on SMP && PREEMPTION

And we have exactly one defconfig that enables both SMP and PREEMPT,
arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/ge_imp3a_defconfig, which is some ~10 year old
PCI card embedded thing I've never heard of. High chance anyone who has
those is not running upstream kernels on them.

So I think we'd be happy for you rip GENERIC_LOCKBREAK out, it's almost
entirely unused on powerpc anyway.

cheers

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-27 12:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-22 11:59 [PATCH] locking: remove spin_lock_flags() etc Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-22 11:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-22 11:59 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-22 11:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-22 14:10 ` Helge Deller
2021-10-22 14:10   ` Helge Deller
2021-10-22 14:10   ` [OpenRISC] " Helge Deller
2021-10-22 14:10   ` Helge Deller
2021-10-23  1:37 ` Waiman Long
2021-10-23  1:37   ` Waiman Long
2021-10-23  1:37   ` [OpenRISC] " Waiman Long
2021-10-23  1:37   ` Waiman Long
2021-10-23 16:04   ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-23 16:04     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-23 16:04     ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-23 16:04     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25  9:57     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25  9:57       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25  9:57       ` [OpenRISC] " Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25  9:57       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 10:06       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 10:06         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 10:06         ` [OpenRISC] " Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 10:06         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 13:06       ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 13:06         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 13:06         ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 13:06         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 14:33         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 14:33           ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 14:33           ` [OpenRISC] " Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 14:33           ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 12:01           ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2021-10-27 12:01             ` Michael Ellerman
2021-10-27 12:01             ` [OpenRISC] " Michael Ellerman
2021-10-27 12:01             ` Michael Ellerman
2021-10-25 15:28         ` Waiman Long
2021-10-25 15:28           ` Waiman Long
2021-10-25 15:28           ` [OpenRISC] " Waiman Long
2021-10-25 15:28           ` Waiman Long
2021-10-25 15:44           ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 15:44             ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 15:44             ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 15:44             ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-10-25 18:25             ` Waiman Long
2021-10-25 18:25               ` Waiman Long
2021-10-25 18:25               ` [OpenRISC] " Waiman Long
2021-10-25 18:25               ` Waiman Long
2021-10-30 14:47 ` [tip: locking/core] locking: Remove " tip-bot2 for Arnd Bergmann

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=87r1c6ad7e.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au \
    --to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=arnd@kernel.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=deller@gmx.de \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jonas@southpole.se \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=openrisc@lists.librecores.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=shorne@gmail.com \
    --cc=stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi \
    --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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.