linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH-tip v2 12/12] locking/rwsem: Remove redundant computation of writer lock word
Date: Fri,  5 Apr 2019 15:21:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190405192115.17416-13-longman@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190405192115.17416-1-longman@redhat.com>

On 64-bit architectures, each rwsem writer will have its unique lock
word for acquiring the lock. Right now, the writer code recomputes the
lock word every time it tries to acquire the lock. This is a waste of
time. The lock word is now cached and reused when it is needed.

On 32-bit architectures, the extra constant argument to
rwsem_try_write_lock() and rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued() should be
optimized out by the compiler.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index ebdf21fcd75e..24ce7e2d4716 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -230,8 +230,8 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
  * race conditions between checking the rwsem wait list and setting the
  * sem->count accordingly.
  */
-static inline bool
-rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem, bool first)
+static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem,
+					const long wlock, bool first)
 {
 	long new;
 
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem, bool first)
 	if (!first && RWSEM_COUNT_HANDOFF(count))
 		return false;
 
-	new = (count & ~RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) + RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED -
+	new = (count & ~RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) + wlock -
 	      (list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list) ? RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS : 0);
 
 	if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count, new)) {
@@ -280,13 +280,14 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_read_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 /*
  * Try to acquire write lock before the writer has been put on wait queue.
  */
-static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
+						 const long wlock)
 {
 	long count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
 
 	while (!RWSEM_COUNT_LOCKED_OR_HANDOFF(count)) {
 		if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count,
-					count + RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)) {
+						    count + wlock)) {
 			rwsem_set_owner(sem);
 			lockevent_inc(rwsem_opt_wlock);
 			return true;
@@ -436,7 +437,7 @@ static inline u64 rwsem_rspin_threshold(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 		: 25 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
 }
 
-static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem, bool wlock)
+static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem, const long wlock)
 {
 	bool taken = false;
 	bool is_rt_task = rt_task(current);
@@ -465,7 +466,7 @@ static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem, bool wlock)
 		/*
 		 * Try to acquire the lock
 		 */
-		taken = wlock ? rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(sem)
+		taken = wlock ? rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(sem, wlock)
 			      : rwsem_try_read_lock_unqueued(sem);
 
 		if (taken)
@@ -544,7 +545,8 @@ static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 	return false;
 }
 
-static inline bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem, bool wlock)
+static inline bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
+					 const long wlock)
 {
 	return false;
 }
@@ -601,7 +603,7 @@ __rwsem_down_read_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state, long count)
 	 */
 	atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
 	adjustment = 0;
-	if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem, false)) {
+	if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem, 0)) {
 		unsigned long flags;
 
 		/*
@@ -717,10 +719,11 @@ __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
 	struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
 	struct rw_semaphore *ret = sem;
 	DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
+	const long wlock = RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED;
 
 	/* do optimistic spinning and steal lock if possible */
 	if (rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem) &&
-	    rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem, true))
+	    rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem, wlock))
 		return sem;
 
 	/*
@@ -779,7 +782,7 @@ __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
 	/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
 	set_current_state(state);
 	while (true) {
-		if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, sem, first))
+		if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, sem, wlock, first))
 			break;
 
 		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
-- 
2.18.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-04-05 19:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-05 19:21 [PATCH-tip v2 00/12] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 01/12] locking/rwsem: Implement a new locking scheme Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 02/12] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation Waiman Long
2019-04-10 15:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 15:28     ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 15:10   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 15:29     ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 18:44   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11  2:25     ` Waiman Long
2019-04-11  7:16       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 03/12] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup optimization Waiman Long
2019-04-10 18:38   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 04/12] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem_spin_on_owner() return owner state Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 05/12] locking/rwsem: Ensure an RT task will not spin on reader Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 06/12] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue Waiman Long
2019-04-10 16:50   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-10 17:08     ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 17:22       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-10 17:31         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-10 17:54           ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 17:53         ` Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 07/12] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 08/12] locking/rwsem: Enable time-based spinning on reader-owned rwsem Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 09/12] locking/rwsem: Add more rwsem owner access helpers Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 10/12] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 11/12] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64 Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-04-05 23:27 ` [PATCH-tip v2 00/12] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Linus Torvalds
2019-04-10 10:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-10 12:38   ` 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=20190405192115.17416-13-longman@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=x86@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: 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).