All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Mateusz Guzik" <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	"linux-arch" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	<viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jan Glauber" <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 15:36:10 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CPQTHRRWI40R.5SDS94D8EFFA@bobo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRm+Z613bHt2d=N1yWJAiDiQVXkh0dN8z02yA_JS-rew@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri Jan 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM AEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:20 PM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually what we'd really want is an arch specific implementation of
> > lockref.
>
> The problem is mainly that then you need to generate the asm versions
> of all those different CMPXCHG_LOOP()  variants.
>
> They are all fairly simple, though, and it woudln't be hard to make
> the current lib/lockref.c just be the generic fallback if you don't
> have an arch-specific one.

Yeah, it doesn't look too onerous so it's probably worth seeing what
the code and some numbers look like here.

> And even if you do have the arch-specific LL/SC version, you'd still
> want the generic fallback for the case where a spinlock isn't a single
> word any more (which happens when the spinlock debugging options are
> on).

You're right, good point.

Thanks,
Nick

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	tony.luck@intel.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 15:36:10 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CPQTHRRWI40R.5SDS94D8EFFA@bobo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRm+Z613bHt2d=N1yWJAiDiQVXkh0dN8z02yA_JS-rew@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri Jan 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM AEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:20 PM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually what we'd really want is an arch specific implementation of
> > lockref.
>
> The problem is mainly that then you need to generate the asm versions
> of all those different CMPXCHG_LOOP()  variants.
>
> They are all fairly simple, though, and it woudln't be hard to make
> the current lib/lockref.c just be the generic fallback if you don't
> have an arch-specific one.

Yeah, it doesn't look too onerous so it's probably worth seeing what
the code and some numbers look like here.

> And even if you do have the arch-specific LL/SC version, you'd still
> want the generic fallback for the case where a spinlock isn't a single
> word any more (which happens when the spinlock debugging options are
> on).

You're right, good point.

Thanks,
Nick

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Mateusz Guzik" <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	"linux-arch" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Michael Ellerman" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	<viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jan Glauber" <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 15:36:10 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CPQTHRRWI40R.5SDS94D8EFFA@bobo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRm+Z613bHt2d=N1yWJAiDiQVXkh0dN8z02yA_JS-rew@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri Jan 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM AEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:20 PM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually what we'd really want is an arch specific implementation of
> > lockref.
>
> The problem is mainly that then you need to generate the asm versions
> of all those different CMPXCHG_LOOP()  variants.
>
> They are all fairly simple, though, and it woudln't be hard to make
> the current lib/lockref.c just be the generic fallback if you don't
> have an arch-specific one.

Yeah, it doesn't look too onerous so it's probably worth seeing what
the code and some numbers look like here.

> And even if you do have the arch-specific LL/SC version, you'd still
> want the generic fallback for the case where a spinlock isn't a single
> word any more (which happens when the spinlock debugging options are
> on).

You're right, good point.

Thanks,
Nick

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2023-01-13  5:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-12 23:36 lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:30   ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:30     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:30     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:45     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  7:55     ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  7:55       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  7:55       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49       ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49         ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49         ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03           ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03           ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04           ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04             ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04             ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05       ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05         ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05         ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24           ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28               ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28               ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15  0:27               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15  0:27                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15  0:27                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04                 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04                   ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04                   ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16  9:42                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:42                     ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:42                     ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16  9:40               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:40                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:40                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32           ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  1:12   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  1:12     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  1:12     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  4:08     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:08       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:08       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  9:46     ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  9:46       ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  9:46       ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  3:20   ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  3:20     ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  3:20     ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  4:15     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:15       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:15       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  5:36       ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2023-01-13  5:36         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  5:36         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-16 14:08     ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 14:08       ` David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09       ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18  9:05       ` David Howells
2023-01-18  9:05         ` David Howells
2023-01-18  9:05         ` David Howells
2023-01-19  1:41         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19  1:41           ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19  1:41           ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44   ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31         ` Linus Torvalds

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=CPQTHRRWI40R.5SDS94D8EFFA@bobo \
    --to=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --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.