From: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, waiman.long@hpe.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] kernel/locking: Drop the overload of {mutex,rwsem}_spin_on_owner
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:43:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1467124991-13164-5-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1467124991-13164-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs has a heavy overload in
the two spin_on_owner. This blames on the lock holder preemption issue.
Kernel has an interface bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) to see if a vCPU is
currently running or not. So break the spin loops on true condition.
test-case:
perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g 400 -p && perf report
before patch:
20.68% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner
8.45% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock
4.12% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call
3.01% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call_common
2.83% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] copypage_power7
2.64% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner
2.00% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] osq_lock
after patch:
9.99% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock
5.28% sched-messaging [unknown] [H] 0xc0000000000768e0
4.27% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __copy_tofrom_user_power7
3.77% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] copypage_power7
3.24% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_write_lock_irq
3.02% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call
2.69% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] wait_consider_task
Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 79d2d76..ef0451b2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -236,7 +236,13 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
*/
barrier();
- if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) {
+ /*
+ * Use vcpu_is_preempted to detech lock holder preemption issue
+ * and break. vcpu_is_preempted is a macro defined by false if
+ * arch does not support vcpu preempted check,
+ */
+ if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched() ||
+ vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner))) {
ret = false;
break;
}
@@ -261,8 +267,13 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
rcu_read_lock();
owner = READ_ONCE(lock->owner);
+
+ /*
+ * As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if task not
+ * on cpu or its cpu is preempted
+ */
if (owner)
- retval = owner->on_cpu;
+ retval = owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner));
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index 09e30c6..828ca7c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -319,7 +319,11 @@ static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
goto done;
}
- ret = owner->on_cpu;
+ /*
+ * As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if task not
+ * on cpu or its cpu is preempted
+ */
+ ret = owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner));
done:
rcu_read_unlock();
return ret;
@@ -340,8 +344,14 @@ bool rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct task_struct *owner)
*/
barrier();
- /* abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running */
- if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched()) {
+ /*
+ * abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running or
+ * owner's cpu is preempted. vcpu_is_preempted is a macro
+ * defined by false if arch does not support vcpu preempted
+ * check
+ */
+ if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched() ||
+ vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner))) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return false;
}
--
2.4.11
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-28 10:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-28 14:43 [PATCH v2 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Pan Xinhui
2016-06-28 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface Pan Xinhui
2016-06-28 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] powerpc/spinlock: support vcpu preempted check Pan Xinhui
2016-07-05 9:57 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-06 4:58 ` xinhui
2016-07-06 6:46 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-06 7:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-06 8:32 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-06 10:18 ` xinhui
2016-07-06 10:54 ` Balbir Singh
2016-07-15 15:35 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-06-28 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq_lock() Pan Xinhui
2016-06-28 14:43 ` Pan Xinhui [this message]
2016-07-06 6:52 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-06 7:47 ` Juergen Gross
2016-07-06 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-06 8:38 ` Juergen Gross
2016-07-06 12:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-06 16:56 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-07-06 10:05 ` xinhui
2016-07-06 10:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-06 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-06 12:08 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-06 12:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-07-06 13:03 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-07 8:48 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-07 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-07 10:12 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-07 10:27 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-07-07 11:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-07 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-07 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-07 11:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-11 15:10 ` Waiman Long
2016-07-12 4:16 ` Juergen Gross
2016-07-12 18:16 ` Waiman Long
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=1467124991-13164-5-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hpe.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).