Re: [PATCH] rwsem: Support optimistic spinning

[Davidlohr Bueso]

ping?

On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 15:19 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
> for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
> and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
> 
> Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
> just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
> this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
> right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
> by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
> rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
> similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
> rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
> between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
> performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
> both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
> optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
> amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
> and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
> 
> This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
> for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
> It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
> locking for adaptive spinning.
> 
> Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
> queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
> for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
> with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
> workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
> aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
> 
> +--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
> |   Workload   | throughput-increase | number of users |
> +--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
> | alltests     | 20%                 | >1000           |
> | custom       | 27%, 60%            | 10-100, >1000   |
> | high_systime | 36%, 30%            | >100, >1000     |
> | shared       | 58%, 29%            | 10-100, >1000   |
> +--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
> 
> There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
> x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
> to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
> were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
> performance regression have been seen at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/rwsem.h       |   9 +-
>  kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 213 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  kernel/locking/rwsem.c      |  31 ++++++-
>  3 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> index 03f3b05..6f992e2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/atomic.h>
>  
> +struct optimistic_spin_queue;
>  struct rw_semaphore;
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK
> @@ -26,6 +27,10 @@ struct rw_semaphore {
>  	long			count;
>  	raw_spinlock_t		wait_lock;
>  	struct list_head	wait_list;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	struct task_struct	     *owner; /* write owner */
> +	struct optimistic_spin_queue *osq;   /* spinner MCS lock */
> +#endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>  	struct lockdep_map	dep_map;
>  #endif
> @@ -58,7 +63,9 @@ static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  #define __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name)			\
>  	{ RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,				\
>  	  __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.wait_lock),	\
> -	  LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).wait_list)		\
> +	  LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).wait_list),		\
> +	  NULL, /* owner */				\
> +	  NULL /* mcs lock */                           \
>  	  __RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) }
>  
>  #define DECLARE_RWSEM(name) \
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> index 1d66e08..b6a67fe 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> @@ -5,12 +5,18 @@
>   *
>   * Writer lock-stealing by Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxx>
>   * and Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + *
> + * Optimistic spinning by Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
> + * and Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>. Based on mutexes.
>   */
>  #include <linux/rwsem.h>
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
>  #include <linux/export.h>
>  
> +#include "mcs_spinlock.h"
> +
>  /*
>   * Initialize an rwsem:
>   */
> @@ -27,6 +33,10 @@ void __init_rwsem(struct rw_semaphore *sem, const char *name,
>  	sem->count = RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>  	raw_spin_lock_init(&sem->wait_lock);
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sem->wait_list);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	sem->owner = NULL;
> +	sem->osq = NULL;
> +#endif
>  }
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__init_rwsem);
> @@ -188,15 +198,183 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	return sem;
>  }
>  
> +static inline int rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
> +		/* Try acquiring the write lock. */
> +		if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> +		    cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> +			    RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
> +			if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> +				rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
> +			return 1;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * 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)
> +{
> +	long count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
> +retry:
> +	if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
> +		count = cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> +			    RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS);
> +		/* allow write lock stealing, try acquiring the write lock. */
> +		if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
> +			goto acquired;
> +		else if (count == 0)
> +			goto retry;
> +	} else if (count == 0) {
> +		count = cmpxchg(&sem->count, 0, RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
> +		if (count == 0)
> +			goto acquired;
> +		else if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
> +			goto retry;
> +	}
> +	return false;
> +
> +acquired:
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	int retval;
> +	struct task_struct *owner;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
> +
> +	/* Spin only if active writer running */
> +	if (owner)
> +		retval = owner->on_cpu;
> +	else {
> +		/*
> +		 * When the owner is not set, the sem owner may have just
> +		 * acquired it and not set the owner yet, or the sem has
> +		 * been released, or reader active.
> +		 */
> +		retval = false;
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	return retval;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool owner_running(struct rw_semaphore *lock,
> +				 struct task_struct *owner)
> +{
> +	if (lock->owner != owner)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_ checking
> +	 * lock->owner still matches owner, if that fails, owner might
> +	 * point to free()d memory, if it still matches, the rcu_read_lock()
> +	 * ensures the memory stays valid.
> +	 */
> +	barrier();
> +
> +	return owner->on_cpu;
> +}
> +
> +static noinline
> +int rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
> +{
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	while (owner_running(lock, owner)) {
> +		if (need_resched())
> +			break;
> +
> +		arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We break out the loop above on need_resched() or when the
> +	 * owner changed, which is a sign for heavy contention. Return
> +	 * success only when lock->owner is NULL.
> +	 */
> +	return lock->owner == NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *owner;
> +	bool taken = false;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();
> +
> +	/* sem->wait_lock should not be held when doing optimistic spinning */
> +	if (!rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem))
> +		goto done;
> +
> +	if (!osq_lock(&sem->osq))
> +		goto done;
> +
> +	while (true) {
> +		owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
> +		if (owner && !rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem, owner))
> +			break;
> +
> +		/* wait_lock will be acquired if write_lock is obtained */
> +		if (rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(sem)) {
> +			taken = true;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
> +		 * owner acquiring the lock and setting the owner field. If
> +		 * we're an RT task that will live-lock because we won't let
> +		 * the owner complete.
> +		 */
> +		if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(current)))
> +			break;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
> +		 * everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need
> +		 * memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
> +		 * values at the cost of a few extra spins.
> +		 */
> +		arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> +	}
> +	osq_unlock(&sem->osq);
> +done:
> +	preempt_enable();
> +	return taken;
> +}
> +
> +#else
> +static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * wait until we successfully acquire the write lock
>   */
>  __visible
>  struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> -	long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
> +	long count;
>  	struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
>  	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +	bool waiting = true;
> +
> +	/* undo write bias from down_write operation, stop active locking */
> +	count = rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS, sem);
> +
> +	/* do optimistic spinning and steal lock if possible */
> +	if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem))
> +		goto done;
>  
>  	/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
>  	waiter.task = tsk;
> @@ -204,34 +382,29 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>  	if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
> -		adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
> +		waiting = false;
>  	list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
>  
>  	/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
> -	count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
> +	if (waiting)
> +		count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
> +	else
> +		count = rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
> +
>  
> -	/* If there were already threads queued before us and there are no
> +	/*
> +	 * If there were already threads queued before us and there are no
>  	 * active writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake
> -	 * any read locks that were queued ahead of us. */
> -	if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> -	    adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
> +	 * any read locks that were queued ahead of us.
> +	 */
> +	if ((count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) && waiting)
>  		sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS);
>  
>  	/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
>  	set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>  	while (true) {
> -		if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
> -			/* Try acquiring the write lock. */
> -			count = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
> -			if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> -				count += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
> -
> -			if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> -			    cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, count) ==
> -							RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
> -				break;
> -		}
> -
> +		if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, sem))
> +			break;
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>  
>  		/* Block until there are no active lockers. */
> @@ -245,8 +418,8 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  
>  	list_del(&waiter.list);
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +done:
>  	tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> -
>  	return sem;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index cfff143..a911dbf 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,27 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/atomic.h>
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	sem->owner = current;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	sem->owner = NULL;
> +}
> +
> +#else
> +static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * lock for reading
>   */
> @@ -48,6 +69,7 @@ void __sched down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>  
>  	LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
> +	rwsem_set_owner(sem);
>  }
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_write);
> @@ -59,8 +81,11 @@ int down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
>  	int ret = __down_write_trylock(sem);
>  
> -	if (ret == 1)
> +	if (ret == 1) {
>  		rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
> +		rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> +	}
> +
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> @@ -86,6 +111,7 @@ void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>  
>  	__up_write(sem);
> +	rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
>  }
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(up_write);
> @@ -100,6 +126,7 @@ void downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	 * dependency.
>  	 */
>  	__downgrade_write(sem);
> +	rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
>  }
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(downgrade_write);
> @@ -122,6 +149,7 @@ void _down_write_nest_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct lockdep_map *nest)
>  	rwsem_acquire_nest(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, nest, _RET_IP_);
>  
>  	LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
> +	rwsem_set_owner(sem);
>  }
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(_down_write_nest_lock);
> @@ -141,6 +169,7 @@ void down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int subclass)
>  	rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
>  
>  	LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
> +	rwsem_set_owner(sem);
>  }
>  
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_write_nested);


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/