From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, Waiman.Long@hp.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, davidlohr@hp.com, hpa@zytor.com,
andi@firstfloor.org, aswin@hp.com, scott.norton@hp.com,
chegu_vinod@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mutex: Modify the way optimistic spinners are queued
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:23:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140128202334.GO9012@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1390936396-3962-3-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:13:13AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> The mutex->spin_mlock was introduced in order to ensure that only 1 thread
> spins for lock acquisition at a time to reduce cache line contention. When
> lock->owner is NULL and the lock->count is still not 1, the spinner(s) will
> continually release and obtain the lock->spin_mlock. This can generate
> quite a bit of overhead/contention, and also might just delay the spinner
> from getting the lock.
>
> This patch modifies the way optimistic spinners are queued by queuing before
> entering the optimistic spinning loop as oppose to acquiring before every
> call to mutex_spin_on_owner(). So in situations where the spinner requires
> a few extra spins before obtaining the lock, then there will only be 1 spinner
> trying to get the lock and it will avoid the overhead from unnecessarily
> unlocking and locking the spin_mlock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
One question below. Also, this might well have a visible effect on
performance, so would be good to see the numbers.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 16 +++++++---------
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 85c6be1..7519d27 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -419,6 +419,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> struct mutex_waiter waiter;
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
> + struct mspin_node node;
>
> preempt_disable();
> mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
> @@ -449,9 +450,9 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
> goto slowpath;
>
> + mspin_lock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
> for (;;) {
> struct task_struct *owner;
> - struct mspin_node node;
>
> if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
> struct ww_mutex *ww;
> @@ -466,19 +467,16 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done.
> */
> if (ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx))
> - goto slowpath;
> + break;
> }
>
> /*
> * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
> * release the lock or go to sleep.
> */
> - mspin_lock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
> owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> - if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner)) {
> - mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
> - goto slowpath;
> - }
> + if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
> + break;
>
> if ((atomic_read(&lock->count) == 1) &&
> (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1)) {
> @@ -495,7 +493,6 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> preempt_enable();
> return 0;
> }
> - mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
>
> /*
> * When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
> @@ -504,7 +501,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> * the owner complete.
> */
> if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task)))
> - goto slowpath;
> + break;
>
> /*
> * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
> @@ -514,6 +511,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> */
> arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> }
> + mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
> slowpath:
Are there any remaining goto statements to slowpath? If so, they need
to release the lock. If not, this label should be removed.
> #endif
> spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> --
> 1.7.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-28 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-28 19:13 [PATCH v2 0/5] mutex: Mutex scalability patches Jason Low
2014-01-28 19:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched() Jason Low
2014-01-28 20:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-01-28 22:01 ` Jason Low
2014-01-28 21:09 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-03-11 12:41 ` [tip:core/locking] locking/mutexes: Return false if task need_resched() in mutex_can_spin_on_owner() tip-bot for Jason Low
2014-01-28 19:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mutex: Modify the way optimistic spinners are queued Jason Low
2014-01-28 20:23 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-01-28 20:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-01-28 21:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-01-28 22:10 ` Jason Low
2014-02-02 21:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-03-11 12:41 ` [tip:core/locking] locking/mutexes: " tip-bot for Jason Low
2014-03-11 15:24 ` Jason Low
2014-03-11 15:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 19:13 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mutex: Unlock the mutex without the wait_lock Jason Low
2014-03-11 12:41 ` [tip:core/locking] locking/mutexes: " tip-bot for Jason Low
2014-03-12 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-12 18:44 ` Jason Low
2014-03-13 7:28 ` [tip:core/locking] locking/mutex: Fix debug checks tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 19:13 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 4/5] mutex: Disable preemtion between modifying lock->owner and locking/unlocking mutex Jason Low
2014-01-28 20:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 22:17 ` Jason Low
2014-01-28 19:13 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 5/5] mutex: Give spinners a chance to spin_on_owner if need_resched() triggered while queued Jason Low
2014-01-28 21:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 22:51 ` Jason Low
2014-01-29 11:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-31 3:29 ` Jason Low
2014-01-31 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-31 20:01 ` Jason Low
2014-01-31 20:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-02 21:01 ` Jason Low
2014-02-02 21:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-03 18:39 ` Jason Low
2014-02-03 19:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-03 20:55 ` Jason Low
2014-02-03 21:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-03 21:56 ` Jason Low
2014-02-04 7:13 ` Jason Low
2014-02-02 22:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-02-02 20:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-05 21:44 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-06 14:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-06 18:45 ` Waiman Long
2014-02-06 20:10 ` Norton, Scott J
2014-02-10 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-06 17:44 ` Jason Low
2014-02-06 18:37 ` Waiman Long
2014-01-28 21:08 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] mutex: Mutex scalability patches Davidlohr Bueso
2014-01-28 23:11 ` Jason Low
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=20140128202334.GO9012@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 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).