From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] qspinlock: Ensure writes are pushed out of core write buffer Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:36:24 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <c932770e-8a19-ab32-7b4e-33fc36981b77@nokia.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210127222158.GB848@willie-the-truck> Hi! On 27/01/2021 23:21, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:01:08PM +0100, Alexander A Sverdlin wrote: >> From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com> >> >> Ensure writes are pushed out of core write buffer to prevent waiting code >> on another cores from spinning longer than necessary. >> >> 6 threads running tight spinlock loop competing for the same lock >> on 6 cores on MIPS/Octeon do 1000000 iterations... >> >> before the patch in: 4.3 sec >> after the patch in: 1.2 sec > If you only have 6 cores, I'm not sure qspinlock makes any sense... That's my impression as well and I even proposed to revert qspinlocks for MIPS: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mips/20170610002644.8434-1-paul.burton@imgtec.com/T/#ma1506c80472129b2ac41554cc2d863c9a24518c0 >> Same 6-core Octeon machine: >> sysbench --test=mutex --num-threads=64 --memory-scope=local run >> >> w/o patch: 1.53s >> with patch: 1.28s >> >> This will also allow to remove the smp_wmb() in >> arch/arm/include/asm/mcs_spinlock.h (was it actually addressing the same >> issue?). >> >> Finally our internal quite diverse test suite of different IPC/network >> aspects didn't detect any regressions on ARM/ARM64/x86_64. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com> >> --- >> kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 5 +++++ >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 6 ++++++ >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h >> index 5e10153..10e497a 100644 >> --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h >> +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h >> @@ -89,6 +89,11 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) >> return; >> } >> WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node); >> + /* >> + * This is necessary to make sure that the corresponding "while" in the >> + * mcs_spin_unlock() doesn't loop forever >> + */ >> + smp_wmb(); > If it loops forever, that's broken hardware design; store buffers need to > drain. I don't think we should add unconditional barriers to bodge this. The comment is a bit exaggerating the situation, but it's undeterministic and you see the measurements above. Something is wrong in the qspinlocks code, please consider this patch "RFC", but something has to be done here. -- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] qspinlock: Ensure writes are pushed out of core write buffer Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:36:24 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <c932770e-8a19-ab32-7b4e-33fc36981b77@nokia.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210127222158.GB848@willie-the-truck> Hi! On 27/01/2021 23:21, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:01:08PM +0100, Alexander A Sverdlin wrote: >> From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com> >> >> Ensure writes are pushed out of core write buffer to prevent waiting code >> on another cores from spinning longer than necessary. >> >> 6 threads running tight spinlock loop competing for the same lock >> on 6 cores on MIPS/Octeon do 1000000 iterations... >> >> before the patch in: 4.3 sec >> after the patch in: 1.2 sec > If you only have 6 cores, I'm not sure qspinlock makes any sense... That's my impression as well and I even proposed to revert qspinlocks for MIPS: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mips/20170610002644.8434-1-paul.burton@imgtec.com/T/#ma1506c80472129b2ac41554cc2d863c9a24518c0 >> Same 6-core Octeon machine: >> sysbench --test=mutex --num-threads=64 --memory-scope=local run >> >> w/o patch: 1.53s >> with patch: 1.28s >> >> This will also allow to remove the smp_wmb() in >> arch/arm/include/asm/mcs_spinlock.h (was it actually addressing the same >> issue?). >> >> Finally our internal quite diverse test suite of different IPC/network >> aspects didn't detect any regressions on ARM/ARM64/x86_64. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com> >> --- >> kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 5 +++++ >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 6 ++++++ >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h >> index 5e10153..10e497a 100644 >> --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h >> +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h >> @@ -89,6 +89,11 @@ void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) >> return; >> } >> WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node); >> + /* >> + * This is necessary to make sure that the corresponding "while" in the >> + * mcs_spin_unlock() doesn't loop forever >> + */ >> + smp_wmb(); > If it loops forever, that's broken hardware design; store buffers need to > drain. I don't think we should add unconditional barriers to bodge this. The comment is a bit exaggerating the situation, but it's undeterministic and you see the measurements above. Something is wrong in the qspinlocks code, please consider this patch "RFC", but something has to be done here. -- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-28 7:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-01-27 20:01 [PATCH 1/2] qspinlock: Ensure writes are pushed out of core write buffer Alexander A Sverdlin 2021-01-27 20:01 ` Alexander A Sverdlin 2021-01-27 20:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: mcs_spinlock: Drop smp_wmb in arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended() Alexander A Sverdlin 2021-01-27 20:01 ` Alexander A Sverdlin 2021-01-27 22:22 ` Will Deacon 2021-01-27 22:22 ` Will Deacon 2021-01-27 22:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] qspinlock: Ensure writes are pushed out of core write buffer Will Deacon 2021-01-27 22:21 ` Will Deacon 2021-01-28 7:36 ` Alexander Sverdlin [this message] 2021-01-28 7:36 ` Alexander Sverdlin 2021-01-28 11:24 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-28 11:24 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-27 22:43 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-27 22:43 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-28 7:42 ` Alexander Sverdlin 2021-01-28 7:42 ` Alexander Sverdlin
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=c932770e-8a19-ab32-7b4e-33fc36981b77@nokia.com \ --to=alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --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: linkBe 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.