diff options
author | Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> | 2020-01-13 16:07:35 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> | 2020-01-17 10:19:30 +0100 |
commit | f5bfdc8e3947a7ae489cf8ae9cfd6b3fb357b952 (patch) | |
tree | e3203e215a968b8f0681ec15d9952c4c05583005 /kernel/locking | |
parent | locking/qspinlock: Fix inaccessible URL of MCS lock paper (diff) | |
download | linux-f5bfdc8e3947a7ae489cf8ae9cfd6b3fb357b952.tar.xz linux-f5bfdc8e3947a7ae489cf8ae9cfd6b3fb357b952.zip |
locking/osq: Use optimized spinning loop for arm64
Arm64 has a more optimized spinning loop (atomic_cond_read_acquire)
using wfe for spinlock that can boost performance of sibling threads
by putting the current cpu to a wait state that is broken only when
the monitored variable changes or an external event happens.
OSQ has a more complicated spinning loop. Besides the lock value, it
also checks for need_resched() and vcpu_is_preempted(). The check for
need_resched() is not a problem as it is only set by the tick interrupt
handler. That will be detected by the spinning cpu right after iret.
The vcpu_is_preempted() check, however, is a problem as changes to the
preempt state of of previous node will not affect the wait state. For
ARM64, vcpu_is_preempted is not currently defined and so is a no-op.
Will has indicated that he is planning to para-virtualize wfe instead
of defining vcpu_is_preempted for PV support. So just add a comment in
arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h to indicate that vcpu_is_preempted()
should not be defined as suggested.
On a 2-socket 56-core 224-thread ARM64 system, a kernel mutex locking
microbenchmark was run for 10s with and without the patch. The
performance numbers before patch were:
Running locktest with mutex [runtime = 10s, load = 1]
Threads = 224, Min/Mean/Max = 316/123,143/2,121,269
Threads = 224, Total Rate = 2,757 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 12 kop/s
After patch, the numbers were:
Running locktest with mutex [runtime = 10s, load = 1]
Threads = 224, Min/Mean/Max = 334/147,836/1,304,787
Threads = 224, Total Rate = 3,311 kop/s; Percpu Rate = 15 kop/s
So there was about 20% performance improvement.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200113150735.21956-1-longman@redhat.com
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/locking')
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 23 |
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c index 6ef600aa0f47..1f7734949ac8 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c @@ -134,20 +134,17 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock) * cmpxchg in an attempt to undo our queueing. */ - while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) { - /* - * If we need to reschedule bail... so we can block. - * Use vcpu_is_preempted() to avoid waiting for a preempted - * lock holder: - */ - if (need_resched() || vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev))) - goto unqueue; - - cpu_relax(); - } - return true; + /* + * Wait to acquire the lock or cancelation. Note that need_resched() + * will come with an IPI, which will wake smp_cond_load_relaxed() if it + * is implemented with a monitor-wait. vcpu_is_preempted() relies on + * polling, be careful. + */ + if (smp_cond_load_relaxed(&node->locked, VAL || need_resched() || + vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev)))) + return true; -unqueue: + /* unqueue */ /* * Step - A -- stabilize @prev * |