From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=0iBm=QT=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E369C282C4
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:23:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FDB3222BE
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:23:02 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8FDB3222BE
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43zbGr3sx7zDqMV
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:23:00 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com
 (client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com;
 envelope-from=longman@redhat.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43zbDy75H9zDqBy
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:21:22 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 [10.5.11.13])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8A7559448;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:21:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from llong.remote.csb (ovpn-121-56.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.121.56])
 by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32D67D8C4;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1549913486-16799-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <1549913486-16799-3-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wjTmSg6zX=xKFSPZor7FWi3s4D0dy-hz_M=yeF_6478QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=longman@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsFNBFgsZGsBEAC3l/RVYISY3M0SznCZOv8aWc/bsAgif1H8h0WPDrHnwt1jfFTB26EzhRea
 XQKAJiZbjnTotxXq1JVaWxJcNJL7crruYeFdv7WUJqJzFgHnNM/upZuGsDIJHyqBHWK5X9ZO
 jRyfqV/i3Ll7VIZobcRLbTfEJgyLTAHn2Ipcpt8mRg2cck2sC9+RMi45Epweu7pKjfrF8JUY
 r71uif2ThpN8vGpn+FKbERFt4hW2dV/3awVckxxHXNrQYIB3I/G6mUdEZ9yrVrAfLw5M3fVU
 CRnC6fbroC6/ztD40lyTQWbCqGERVEwHFYYoxrcGa8AzMXN9CN7bleHmKZrGxDFWbg4877zX
 0YaLRypme4K0ULbnNVRQcSZ9UalTvAzjpyWnlnXCLnFjzhV7qsjozloLTkZjyHimSc3yllH7
 VvP/lGHnqUk7xDymgRHNNn0wWPuOpR97J/r7V1mSMZlni/FVTQTRu87aQRYu3nKhcNJ47TGY
 evz/U0ltaZEU41t7WGBnC7RlxYtdXziEn5fC8b1JfqiP0OJVQfdIMVIbEw1turVouTovUA39
 Qqa6Pd1oYTw+Bdm1tkx7di73qB3x4pJoC8ZRfEmPqSpmu42sijWSBUgYJwsziTW2SBi4hRjU
 h/Tm0NuU1/R1bgv/EzoXjgOM4ZlSu6Pv7ICpELdWSrvkXJIuIwARAQABzR9Mb25nbWFuIExv
 bmcgPGxsb25nQHJlZGhhdC5jb20+wsF/BBMBAgApBQJYLGRrAhsjBQkJZgGABwsJCAcDAgEG
 FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQbjBXZE7vHeYwBA//ZYxi4I/4KVrqc6oodVfwPnOVxvyY
 oKZGPXZXAa3swtPGmRFc8kGyIMZpVTqGJYGD9ZDezxpWIkVQDnKM9zw/qGarUVKzElGHcuFN
 ddtwX64yxDhA+3Og8MTy8+8ZucM4oNsbM9Dx171bFnHjWSka8o6qhK5siBAf9WXcPNogUk4S
 fMNYKxexcUayv750GK5E8RouG0DrjtIMYVJwu+p3X1bRHHDoieVfE1i380YydPd7mXa7FrRl
 7unTlrxUyJSiBc83HgKCdFC8+ggmRVisbs+1clMsK++ehz08dmGlbQD8Fv2VK5KR2+QXYLU0
 rRQjXk/gJ8wcMasuUcywnj8dqqO3kIS1EfshrfR/xCNSREcv2fwHvfJjprpoE9tiL1qP7Jrq
 4tUYazErOEQJcE8Qm3fioh40w8YrGGYEGNA4do/jaHXm1iB9rShXE2jnmy3ttdAh3M8W2OMK
 4B/Rlr+Awr2NlVdvEF7iL70kO+aZeOu20Lq6mx4Kvq/WyjZg8g+vYGCExZ7sd8xpncBSl7b3
 99AIyT55HaJjrs5F3Rl8dAklaDyzXviwcxs+gSYvRCr6AMzevmfWbAILN9i1ZkfbnqVdpaag
 QmWlmPuKzqKhJP+OMYSgYnpd/vu5FBbc+eXpuhydKqtUVOWjtp5hAERNnSpD87i1TilshFQm
 TFxHDzbOwU0EWCxkawEQALAcdzzKsZbcdSi1kgjfce9AMjyxkkZxcGc6Rhwvt78d66qIFK9D
 Y9wfcZBpuFY/AcKEqjTo4FZ5LCa7/dXNwOXOdB1Jfp54OFUqiYUJFymFKInHQYlmoES9EJEU
 yy+2ipzy5yGbLh3ZqAXyZCTmUKBU7oz/waN7ynEP0S0DqdWgJnpEiFjFN4/ovf9uveUnjzB6
 lzd0BDckLU4dL7aqe2ROIHyG3zaBMuPo66pN3njEr7IcyAL6aK/IyRrwLXoxLMQW7YQmFPSw
 drATP3WO0x8UGaXlGMVcaeUBMJlqTyN4Swr2BbqBcEGAMPjFCm6MjAPv68h5hEoB9zvIg+fq
 M1/Gs4D8H8kUjOEOYtmVQ5RZQschPJle95BzNwE3Y48ZH5zewgU7ByVJKSgJ9HDhwX8Ryuia
 79r86qZeFjXOUXZjjWdFDKl5vaiRbNWCpuSG1R1Tm8o/rd2NZ6l8LgcK9UcpWorrPknbE/pm
 MUeZ2d3ss5G5Vbb0bYVFRtYQiCCfHAQHO6uNtA9IztkuMpMRQDUiDoApHwYUY5Dqasu4ZDJk
 bZ8lC6qc2NXauOWMDw43z9He7k6LnYm/evcD+0+YebxNsorEiWDgIW8Q/E+h6RMS9kW3Rv1N
 qd2nFfiC8+p9I/KLcbV33tMhF1+dOgyiL4bcYeR351pnyXBPA66ldNWvABEBAAHCwWUEGAEC
 AA8FAlgsZGsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQbjBXZE7vHeYxSQ/+PnnPrOkKHDHQew8Pq9w2RAOO8gMg
 9Ty4L54CsTf21Mqc6GXj6LN3WbQta7CVA0bKeq0+WnmsZ9jkTNh8lJp0/RnZkSUsDT9Tza9r
 GB0svZnBJMFJgSMfmwa3cBttCh+vqDV3ZIVSG54nPmGfUQMFPlDHccjWIvTvyY3a9SLeamaR
 jOGye8MQAlAD40fTWK2no6L1b8abGtziTkNh68zfu3wjQkXk4kA4zHroE61PpS3oMD4AyI9L
 7A4Zv0Cvs2MhYQ4Qbbmafr+NOhzuunm5CoaRi+762+c508TqgRqH8W1htZCzab0pXHRfywtv
 0P+BMT7vN2uMBdhr8c0b/hoGqBTenOmFt71tAyyGcPgI3f7DUxy+cv3GzenWjrvf3uFpxYx4
 yFQkUcu06wa61nCdxXU/BWFItryAGGdh2fFXnIYP8NZfdA+zmpymJXDQeMsAEHS0BLTVQ3+M
 7W5Ak8p9V+bFMtteBgoM23bskH6mgOAw6Cj/USW4cAJ8b++9zE0/4Bv4iaY5bcsL+h7TqQBH
 Lk1eByJeVooUa/mqa2UdVJalc8B9NrAnLiyRsg72Nurwzvknv7anSgIkL+doXDaG21DgCYTD
 wGA5uquIgb8p3/ENgYpDPrsZ72CxVC2NEJjJwwnRBStjJOGQX4lV1uhN1XsZjBbRHdKF2W9g
 weim8xU=
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <ef66f262-d68e-58ea-34f6-15b88803cf71@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:21:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjTmSg6zX=xKFSPZor7FWi3s4D0dy-hz_M=yeF_6478QA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16
 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:21:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
 Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
 Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
 Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
 sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On 02/12/2019 02:58 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote=
:
>> Modify __down_read_trylock() to make it generate slightly better code
>> (smaller and maybe a tiny bit faster).
> This looks good, but I would ask you to try one slightly different appr=
oach.
>
> Instead of this:
>
>>        long tmp =3D atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
>>
>>        while (tmp >=3D 0) {
>>                if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &tmp,
>>                                        tmp + RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS)) =
{
>>                        return 1;
>>                }
>>        }
> try doing this instead:
>
>         long tmp =3D 0;
>
>         do {
>                 if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &tmp,
>                                         tmp + RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS)) =
{
>                         return 1;
>         } while (tmp >=3D 0);
>         return 0;
>
> because especially when it comes to locking, it's usually better to
> just *guess* that the lock is unlocked, than it is to actually read
> from the line to see what the state is.
>
> Often - but certainly not always - the lock is the first access to the
> target cacheline, and assuming the trylock is successful (which I
> think is the case we want to optimize for), we're much better off
> causing that first access to be a read-for-ownership, rather than a
> read-for-sharing.
>
> Because if you first read from the line, and then do a cmpxchg, and if
> the line was not in the cache, your cache coherency protocol will
> generally go through two states: first shared (for the initial read)
> and then exclusive-dirty (for the cmpxchg).
>
> Now, this is obviously very micro-architecture dependent, and in fact
> the microarchitecture could even see the "predict fallthrough to a
> cmpxchg with the same address" and turn the first read into a
> read-for-ownership, but we've done this at some point before, and the
> "guess unlocked" was actually the one that performed better.
>
> Of course, the downside is that it might be worse when the guess is
> incorrect - either because of a nested read lock or due to an actual
> conflict with a write, but on the whole those *should* be the rare
> cases, and not the cases where we necessarily optimize for latency of
> the operation.
>
> Hmm?

I looked at the assembly code in arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h. For both
trylocks (read & write), the count is read first before attempting to
lock it. We did the same for all trylock functions in other locks.
Depending on how the trylock is used and how contended the lock is, it
may help or hurt performance. Changing down_read_trylock to do an
unconditional cmpxchg will change the performance profile of existing
code. So I would prefer keeping the current code.

I do notice now that the generic down_write_trylock() code is doing an
unconditional compxchg. So I wonder if we should change it to read the
lock first like other trylocks or just leave it as it is.

Cheers,
Longman