Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] rust: apply cache line padding for `SpinLock`

From: "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@metaspace.dk>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc: Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com, alex.gaynor@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
	benno.lossin@proton.me, bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, gary@garyguo.net, gost.dev@samsung.com,
	hare@suse.de, hch@lst.de, kbusch@kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, ojeda@kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, wedsonaf@gmail.com,
	willy@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] rust: apply cache line padding for `SpinLock`
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:29:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y1b7a994.fsf@metaspace.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230503120354.534136-1-aliceryhl@google.com>

Hi Alice,

Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> writes:

> On Wed, 3 May 2023 11:07:03 +0200, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com> wrote:
>> The kernel `struct spinlock` is 4 bytes on x86 when lockdep is not enabled. The
>> structure is not padded to fit a cache line. The effect of this for `SpinLock`
>> is that the lock variable and the value protected by the lock will share a cache
>> line, depending on the alignment requirements of the protected value. Aligning
>> the lock variable and the protected value to a cache line yields a 20%
>> performance increase for the Rust null block driver for sequential reads to
>> memory backed devices at 6 concurrent readers.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>
>
> This applies the cacheline padding to all spinlocks unconditionally.
> It's not clear to me that we want to do that. Instead, I suggest using
> `SpinLock<CachePadded<T>>` in the null block driver to opt-in to the
> cache padding there, and let other drivers choose whether or not they
> want to cache pad their locks.

I was going to write that this is not going to work because the compiler
is going to reorder the fields of `Lock` and put the `data` field first,
followed by the `state` field. But I checked the layout, and it seems
that I actually get the `state` field first (with an alignment of 4), 60
bytes of padding, and then the `data` field (with alignment 64).

I am wondering why the compiler is not reordering these fields? Am I
guaranteed that the fields will not be reordered? Looking at the
definition of `Lock` there does not seem to be anything that prevents
rustc from swapping `state` and `data`.

>
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 11:07:03 +0200, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/cache_padded.rs b/rust/kernel/cache_padded.rs
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..758678e71f50
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/rust/kernel/cache_padded.rs
>> 
>> +impl<T> CachePadded<T> {
>> +    /// Pads and aligns a value to 64 bytes.
>> +    #[inline(always)]
>> +    pub(crate) const fn new(t: T) -> CachePadded<T> {
>> +        CachePadded::<T> { value: t }
>> +    }
>> +}
>
> Please make this `pub` instead of just `pub(crate)`. Other drivers might
> want to use this directly.

Alright.

>
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 11:07:03 +0200, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs
>> index 979b56464a4e..e39142a8148c 100644
>> --- a/rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs
>> +++ b/rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs
>> @@ -100,18 +103,20 @@ unsafe impl super::Backend for SpinLockBackend {
>>      ) {
>>          // SAFETY: The safety requirements ensure that `ptr` is valid for writes, and `name` and
>>          // `key` are valid for read indefinitely.
>> -        unsafe { bindings::__spin_lock_init(ptr, name, key) }
>> +        unsafe { bindings::__spin_lock_init((&mut *ptr).deref_mut(), name, key) }
>>      }
>>  
>> +    #[inline(always)]
>>      unsafe fn lock(ptr: *mut Self::State) -> Self::GuardState {
>>          // SAFETY: The safety requirements of this function ensure that `ptr` points to valid
>>          // memory, and that it has been initialised before.
>> -        unsafe { bindings::spin_lock(ptr) }
>> +        unsafe { bindings::spin_lock((&mut *ptr).deref_mut()) }
>>      }
>>  
>> +    #[inline(always)]
>>      unsafe fn unlock(ptr: *mut Self::State, _guard_state: &Self::GuardState) {
>>          // SAFETY: The safety requirements of this function ensure that `ptr` is valid and that the
>>          // caller is the owner of the mutex.
>> -        unsafe { bindings::spin_unlock(ptr) }
>> +        unsafe { bindings::spin_unlock((&mut *ptr).deref_mut()) }
>>      }
>>  }
>
> I would prefer to remain in pointer-land for the above operations. I
> think that this leads to core that is more obviously correct.
>
> For example:
>
> ```
> impl<T> CachePadded<T> {
>     pub const fn raw_get(ptr: *mut Self) -> *mut T {
>         core::ptr::addr_of_mut!((*ptr).value)
>     }
> }
>
> #[inline(always)]
> unsafe fn unlock(ptr: *mut Self::State, _guard_state: &Self::GuardState) {
>     unsafe { bindings::spin_unlock(CachePadded::raw_get(ptr)) }
> }
> ```

Got it 👍

BR Andreas