All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow new waiters to steal the lock before queueing
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:31:42 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba3e6f8bb0d9b45a799f26f8e6af82ea024d4f05.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220728063120.2867508-7-npiggin@gmail.com>

On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 16:31 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Allow new waiters a number of spins on the lock word before queueing,
> which particularly helps paravirt performance when physical CPUs are
> oversubscribed.
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c | 152 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 141 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
> index 7c71e5e287df..1625cce714b2 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
> @@ -19,8 +19,17 @@ struct qnodes {
>  	struct qnode nodes[MAX_NODES];
>  };
>  
> +/* Tuning parameters */
> +static int STEAL_SPINS __read_mostly = (1<<5);
> +static bool MAYBE_STEALERS __read_mostly = true;

I can understand why, but macro case variables can be a bit confusing.

> +
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct qnodes, qnodes);
>  
> +static __always_inline int get_steal_spins(void)
> +{
> +	return STEAL_SPINS;
> +}
> +
>  static inline u32 encode_tail_cpu(void)
>  {
>  	return (smp_processor_id() + 1) << _Q_TAIL_CPU_OFFSET;
> @@ -76,6 +85,39 @@ static __always_inline int trylock_clear_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 ol
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static __always_inline u32 __trylock_cmpxchg(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 old, u32 new)
> +{
> +	u32 prev;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(old & _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
> +
> +	asm volatile(
> +"1:	lwarx	%0,0,%1,%4	# queued_spin_trylock_cmpxchg		\n"

s/queued_spin_trylock_cmpxchg/__trylock_cmpxchg/

btw what is the format you using for the '\n's in the inline asm?

> +"	cmpw	0,%0,%2							\n"
> +"	bne-	2f							\n"
> +"	stwcx.	%3,0,%1							\n"
> +"	bne-	1b							\n"
> +"\t"	PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER "						\n"
> +"2:									\n"
> +	: "=&r" (prev)
> +	: "r" (&lock->val), "r"(old), "r" (new),
> +	  "i" (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) ? 1 : 0)
> +	: "cr0", "memory");

This is very similar to trylock_clear_tail_cpu(). So maybe it is worth having
some form of "test and set" primitive helper.

> +
> +	return prev;
> +}
> +
> +/* Take lock, preserving tail, cmpxchg with val (which must not be locked) */
> +static __always_inline int trylock_with_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> +{
> +	u32 newval = _Q_LOCKED_VAL | (val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK);
> +
> +	if (__trylock_cmpxchg(lock, val, newval) == val)
> +		return 1;
> +	else
> +		return 0;

same optional style nit: return __trylock_cmpxchg(lock, val, newval) == val

> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Publish our tail, replacing previous tail. Return previous value.
>   *
> @@ -115,6 +157,31 @@ static struct qnode *get_tail_qnode(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>  	BUG();
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool try_to_steal_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	int iters;
> +
> +	/* Attempt to steal the lock */
> +	for (;;) {
> +		u32 val = READ_ONCE(lock->val);
> +
> +		if (unlikely(!(val & _Q_LOCKED_VAL))) {
> +			if (trylock_with_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				return true;
> +			continue;
> +		}

The continue would bypass iters++/cpu_relax but the next time around
  if (unlikely(!(val & _Q_LOCKED_VAL))) {
should fail so everything should be fine?

> +
> +		cpu_relax();
> +
> +		iters++;
> +
> +		if (iters >= get_steal_spins())
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	struct qnodes *qnodesp;
> @@ -164,20 +231,39 @@ static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  		smp_rmb(); /* acquire barrier for the mcs lock */
>  	}
>  
> -	/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
> -	while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> -		cpu_relax();
> +	if (!MAYBE_STEALERS) {
> +		/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
> +		while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> +			cpu_relax();
>  
> -	/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> -	if ((val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) == tail) {
> -		if (trylock_clear_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> -			goto release;
> -		/* Another waiter must have enqueued */
> -	}
> +		/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> +		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) == tail) {
> +			if (trylock_clear_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				goto release;
> +			/* Another waiter must have enqueued. */
> +		}
> +
> +		/* We must be the owner, just set the lock bit and acquire */
> +		lock_set_locked(lock);
> +	} else {
> +again:
> +		/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
> +		while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> +			cpu_relax();
>  
> -	/* We must be the owner, just set the lock bit and acquire */
> -	lock_set_locked(lock);
> +		/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> +		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) == tail) {
> +			if (trylock_clear_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				goto release;
> +			/* Another waiter must have enqueued, or lock stolen. */
> +		} else {
> +			if (trylock_with_tail_cpu(lock, val))
> +				goto unlock_next;
> +		}
> +		goto again;
> +	}
>  
> +unlock_next:
>  	/* contended path; must wait for next != NULL (MCS protocol) */
>  	while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
>  		cpu_relax();
> @@ -197,6 +283,9 @@ static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  
>  void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
> +	if (try_to_steal_lock(lock))
> +		return;
> +
>  	queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(lock);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(queued_spin_lock_slowpath);
> @@ -207,3 +296,44 @@ void pv_spinlocks_init(void)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
> +static int steal_spins_set(void *data, u64 val)
> +{
> +	static DEFINE_MUTEX(lock);


I just want to check if it would be possible to get rid of the MAYBE_STEALERS
variable completely and do something like:

  bool maybe_stealers() { return STEAL_SPINS > 0; }

I guess based on the below code it wouldn't work, but I'm still not quite sure
why that is.

> +
> +	mutex_lock(&lock);
> +	if (val && !STEAL_SPINS) {
> +		MAYBE_STEALERS = true;
> +		/* wait for waiter to go away */
> +		synchronize_rcu();
> +		STEAL_SPINS = val;
> +	} else if (!val && STEAL_SPINS) {
> +		STEAL_SPINS = val;
> +		/* wait for all possible stealers to go away */
> +		synchronize_rcu();
> +		MAYBE_STEALERS = false;
> +	} else {
> +		STEAL_SPINS = val;
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&lock);

STEAL_SPINS is an int not a u64.

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int steal_spins_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> +{
> +	*val = STEAL_SPINS;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(fops_steal_spins, steal_spins_get, steal_spins_set, "%llu\n");
> +
> +static __init int spinlock_debugfs_init(void)
> +{
> +	debugfs_create_file("qspl_steal_spins", 0600, arch_debugfs_dir, NULL, &fops_steal_spins);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +device_initcall(spinlock_debugfs_init);
> +


  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-10  4:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-28  6:31 [PATCH 00/17] powerpc: alternate queued spinlock implementation Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 01/17] powerpc/qspinlock: powerpc qspinlock implementation Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  1:52   ` Jordan NIethe
2022-08-10  6:48     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-11-10  0:35   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  6:37     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-11-10 11:44       ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-11-10  9:09     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 1a/17] powerpc/qspinlock: Prepare qspinlock code Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 02/17] powerpc/qspinlock: add mcs queueing for contended waiters Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  2:28   ` Jordan NIethe
2022-11-10  0:36   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  9:21     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 03/17] powerpc/qspinlock: use a half-word store to unlock to avoid larx/stcx Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  3:28   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:39   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  9:25     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 04/17] powerpc/qspinlock: convert atomic operations to assembly Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  3:54   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:39   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  8:36     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-11-10 11:48       ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-11-10  9:40     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 05/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow new waiters to steal the lock before queueing Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  4:31   ` Jordan Niethe [this message]
2022-11-10  0:40   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 10:54     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 06/17] powerpc/qspinlock: theft prevention to control latency Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-10  5:51   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:40   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 10:57     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 07/17] powerpc/qspinlock: store owner CPU in lock word Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  0:50   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:40   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 10:59     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 08/17] powerpc/qspinlock: paravirt yield to lock owner Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  2:01   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:41   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:13     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 09/17] powerpc/qspinlock: implement option to yield to previous node Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  2:07   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:41   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:14     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 10/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow stealing when head of queue yields Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:06   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:42   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:22     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 11/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow propagation of yield CPU down the queue Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:17   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-10-06 17:27   ` Laurent Dufour
2022-11-10  0:42   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:25     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 12/17] powerpc/qspinlock: add ability to prod new queue head CPU Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:22   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:42   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:32     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 13/17] powerpc/qspinlock: trylock and initial lock attempt may steal Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:32   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:35     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 14/17] powerpc/qspinlock: use spin_begin/end API Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:36   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:36     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 15/17] powerpc/qspinlock: reduce remote node steal spins Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:43   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:37     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 16/17] powerpc/qspinlock: allow indefinite spinning on a preempted owner Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-12  4:49   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-09-22 15:02   ` Laurent Dufour
2022-09-23  8:16     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-11-10  0:44   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:38     ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-28  6:31 ` [PATCH 17/17] powerpc/qspinlock: provide accounting and options for sleepy locks Nicholas Piggin
2022-08-15  1:11   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10  0:44   ` Jordan Niethe
2022-11-10 11:41     ` Nicholas Piggin

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=ba3e6f8bb0d9b45a799f26f8e6af82ea024d4f05.camel@gmail.com \
    --to=jniethe5@gmail.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.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 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.