From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rwsem: check the lock before cpmxchg in down_write_trylock and rwsem_do_wake
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:16:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C64C5D.5090400@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51C55082.5040500@hurleysoftware.com>
On 06/22/2013 03:21 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 07:51 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>> Doing cmpxchg will cause cache bouncing when checking
>> sem->count. This could cause scalability issue
>> in a large machine (e.g. a 80 cores box).
>>
>> A pre-read of sem->count can mitigate this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> include/asm-generic/rwsem.h | 8 ++++----
>> lib/rwsem.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h b/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
>> index bb1e2cd..052d973 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
>> @@ -70,11 +70,11 @@ static inline void __down_write(struct
>> rw_semaphore *sem)
>>
>> static inline int __down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> {
>> - long tmp;
>> + if (unlikely(&sem->count != RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE))
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is probably not what you want.
>
this function logical is quite simple. check the sem->count before
cmpxchg is no harm this logical.
So could you like to tell us what should we want?
>
>> + return 0;
>>
>> - tmp = cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,
>> - RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
>> - return tmp == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>> + return cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,
>> + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
>> index 19c5fa9..2072af5 100644
>> --- a/lib/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/lib/rwsem.c
>> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
>> rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>> * will block as they will notice the queued writer.
>> */
>> wake_up_process(waiter->task);
>> - goto out;
>> + return sem;
>
> Please put these flow control changes in a separate patch.
I had sent the split patches to Tim&Davidlohr. They will send them out
as a single patchset.
>
>
>> }
>>
>> /* Writers might steal the lock before we grant it to the next
>> reader.
>> @@ -85,15 +85,21 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
>> rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>> adjustment = 0;
>> if (wake_type != RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED) {
>> adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
>> - try_reader_grant:
>> - oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem) - adjustment;
>> - if (unlikely(oldcount < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
>> - /* A writer stole the lock. Undo our reader grant. */
>> + while (1) {
>> + /* A writer stole the lock. */
>> + if (sem->count < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
>> + return sem;
>
> I'm all for structured looping instead of goto labels but this optimization
> is only useful on the 1st iteration. IOW, on the second iteration you
> already
> know that you need to try for reclaiming the lock.
>
sorry. could you like to say more clear, what's the 1st or 2nd iteration
or others?
>
>> +
>> + oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem)
>> + - adjustment;
>> + if (likely(oldcount >= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + /* A writer stole the lock. Undo our reader grant. */
>> if (rwsem_atomic_update(-adjustment, sem) &
>> RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
>> - goto out;
>> + return sem;
>> /* Last active locker left. Retry waking readers. */
>> - goto try_reader_grant;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -136,7 +142,6 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
>> rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>> sem->wait_list.next = next;
>> next->prev = &sem->wait_list;
>>
>> - out:
>> return sem;
>> }
>
>
> Alex and Tim,
>
> Was there a v1 of this series; ie., is this v2 (or higher)?
>
> How are you validating lock correctness/behavior with this series?
some benchmark tested against this patch, mainly aim7. plus by eyes, we
didn't change the logical except check the lock value before do locking
>
> Regards,
> Peter Hurley
>
--
Thanks
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-23 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1371855277.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
2013-06-21 23:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] rwsem: check the lock before cpmxchg in down_write_trylock and rwsem_do_wake Tim Chen
2013-06-22 0:10 ` Alex Shi
2013-06-22 0:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-24 16:34 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-22 7:21 ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-23 1:16 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2013-06-23 5:10 ` Andi Kleen
2013-06-23 11:52 ` Alex Shi
2013-06-21 23:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition Tim Chen
2013-06-22 0:00 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-22 7:57 ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-23 20:03 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-24 17:11 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 18:49 ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 19:13 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 20:32 ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 20:17 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 20:48 ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 21:30 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-25 7:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-25 16:00 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 21:58 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 22:08 ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-24 16:36 ` Tim Chen
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=51C64C5D.5090400@intel.com \
--to=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=walken@google.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).