From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 AF836C433DF for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEB8207BB for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="NncC+SeT" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730092AbgGFSkF (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:40:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:20975 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729806AbgGFSkC (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:40:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594060801; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fGfzwKmfId0nPt6AjeRSKqUxZBg1dc0lbe/SE6/v6yI=; b=NncC+SeT6Hdb3T1ZKv3cUKPtJJgPS0Ok5WWDoUjzK+rIJOW8bzHXp4wEmGlZ070R8ZvNap t1zO0idWjW//u/T8PsWXIwv9u52t6xJzvlO6mcsdzBpP6/Fq45g4XfdwowAcdtqYyDlme3 pPiVCmF3l41od2F3GlCTHjathk3iT54= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-43-ZRiGS6MdOQm63DvY3owoAw-1; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 14:39:57 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ZRiGS6MdOQm63DvY3owoAw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597AF8014D4; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from llong.remote.csb (ovpn-117-98.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.117.98]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150B52C2BC; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc: queued spinlocks and rwlocks To: Nicholas Piggin , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Boqun Feng , Ingo Molnar , Anton Blanchard , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org References: <20200706043540.1563616-1-npiggin@gmail.com> From: Waiman Long Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <24f75d2c-60cd-2766-4aab-1a3b1c80646e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:39:53 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200706043540.1563616-1-npiggin@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/6/20 12:35 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > v3 is updated to use __pv_queued_spin_unlock, noticed by Waiman (thank you). > > Thanks, > Nick > > Nicholas Piggin (6): > powerpc/powernv: must include hvcall.h to get PAPR defines > powerpc/pseries: move some PAPR paravirt functions to their own file > powerpc: move spinlock implementation to simple_spinlock > powerpc/64s: implement queued spinlocks and rwlocks > powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt qspinlocks for SPLPAR > powerpc/qspinlock: optimised atomic_try_cmpxchg_lock that adds the > lock hint > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 13 + > arch/powerpc/include/asm/Kbuild | 2 + > arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h | 28 ++ > arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h | 89 +++++ > arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 91 ++++++ > arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 7 + > arch/powerpc/include/asm/simple_spinlock.h | 292 +++++++++++++++++ > .../include/asm/simple_spinlock_types.h | 21 ++ > arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 308 +----------------- > arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock_types.h | 17 +- > arch/powerpc/lib/Makefile | 3 + > arch/powerpc/lib/locks.c | 12 +- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda-tce.c | 1 + > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig | 5 + > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c | 6 +- > include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h | 4 + > 16 files changed, 577 insertions(+), 322 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/simple_spinlock.h > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/simple_spinlock_types.h > This patch looks OK to me. I had run some microbenchmark on powerpc system with or w/o the patch. On a 2-socket 160-thread SMT4 POWER9 system (not virtualized): 5.8.0-rc4 ========= Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 77,665/90,153/106,895 Threads = 160, Total Rate = 1,441,759 op/s; Percpu Rate = 9,011 op/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 47,879/53,807/63,689 Threads = 160, Total Rate = 860,192 op/s; Percpu Rate = 5,376 op/s Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 80, Min/Mean/Max = 242,907/319,514/463,161 Threads = 80, Total Rate = 2,555 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 32 kop/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 80, Min/Mean/Max = 146,161/187,474/259,270 Threads = 80, Total Rate = 1,498 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 19 kop/s Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 40, Min/Mean/Max = 646,639/1,000,817/1,455,205 Threads = 40, Total Rate = 4,001 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 100 kop/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 40, Min/Mean/Max = 402,165/597,132/814,555 Threads = 40, Total Rate = 2,388 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 60 kop/s 5.8.0-rc4-qlock+ ================ Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 123,835/124,580/124,587 Threads = 160, Total Rate = 1,992 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 12 kop/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 254,210/264,714/276,784 Threads = 160, Total Rate = 4,231 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 26 kop/s Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 80, Min/Mean/Max = 599,715/603,397/603,450 Threads = 80, Total Rate = 4,825 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 60 kop/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 80, Min/Mean/Max = 492,687/525,224/567,456 Threads = 80, Total Rate = 4,199 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 52 kop/s Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 40, Min/Mean/Max = 1,325,623/1,325,628/1,325,636 Threads = 40, Total Rate = 5,299 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 132 kop/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 40, Min/Mean/Max = 1,249,731/1,292,977/1,342,815 Threads = 40, Total Rate = 5,168 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 129 kop/s On systems on large number of cpus, qspinlock lock is faster and more fair. With some tuning, we may be able to squeeze out more performance. Cheers, Longman