Re: [PATCH v4] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to improve performance on some archs

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Feb 21 2017 - 03:20:57 EST



* Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All the locking related cmpxchg's in the following functions are
> replaced with the _acquire variants:
> - pv_queued_spin_steal_lock()
> - trylock_clear_pending()
>
> This change should help performance on architectures that use LL/SC.
>
> On a 2-core 16-thread Power8 system with pvqspinlock explicitly
> enabled, the performance of a locking microbenchmark with and without
> this patch on a 4.10-rc8 kernel with Xinhui's PPC qspinlock patch
> were as follows:
>
> # of thread w/o patch with patch % Change
> ----------- --------- ---------- --------
> 4 4053.3 Mop/s 4223.7 Mop/s +4.2%
> 8 3310.4 Mop/s 3406.0 Mop/s +2.9%
> 12 2576.4 Mop/s 2674.6 Mop/s +3.8%
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> v3->v4:
> - Update the comment in pv_kick_node() to mention that the code
> may not work in some archs.
>
> v2->v3:
> - Reduce scope by relaxing cmpxchg's in fast path only.
>
> v1->v2:
> - Add comments in changelog and code for the rationale of the change.
>
> kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 19 +++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> index e6b2f7a..93e271d 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static inline bool pv_queued_spin_steal_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>
> if (!(atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) &&
> - (cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0)) {
> + (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0)) {
> qstat_inc(qstat_pv_lock_stealing, true);
> return true;
> }
> @@ -101,16 +101,16 @@ static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
>
> /*
> * The pending bit check in pv_queued_spin_steal_lock() isn't a memory
> - * barrier. Therefore, an atomic cmpxchg() is used to acquire the lock
> - * just to be sure that it will get it.
> + * barrier. Therefore, an atomic cmpxchg_acquire() is used to acquire the
> + * lock just to be sure that it will get it.
> */
> static __always_inline int trylock_clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> {
> struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>
> return !READ_ONCE(l->locked) &&
> - (cmpxchg(&l->locked_pending, _Q_PENDING_VAL, _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> - == _Q_PENDING_VAL);
> + (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->locked_pending, _Q_PENDING_VAL,
> + _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == _Q_PENDING_VAL);
> }
> #else /* _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8 */
> static __always_inline void set_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static __always_inline int trylock_clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> */
> old = val;
> new = (val & ~_Q_PENDING_MASK) | _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
> - val = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, old, new);
> + val = atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, old, new);
>
> if (val == old)
> return 1;
> @@ -361,6 +361,13 @@ static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> * observe its next->locked value and advance itself.
> *
> * Matches with smp_store_mb() and cmpxchg() in pv_wait_node()
> + *
> + * The write to next->locked in arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended()
> + * must be ordered before the read of pn->state in the cmpxchg()
> + * below for the code to work correctly. However, this is not
> + * guaranteed in all architectures when the cmpxchg() fails.
> + * Both x86 and PPC can provide that guarantee, but probably
> + * not in some other architectures.

ob- spelling pedantry:

s/not guaranteed in all architectures
/not guaranteed on all architectures

s/not in some other architectures
/not on some other architectures

Also, "the cmpxchg() fails" should either be "when the cmpxchg() call fails" or
"when cmpxchg() fails".

Plus the last sentence reads a bit funny.

Something like this would work for me:

* The write to next->locked in arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended()
* must be ordered before the read of pn->state in the cmpxchg()
* below for the code to work correctly. However, this is not
* guaranteed on all architectures when cmpxchg() fails.
* Both x86 and PPC can provide that guarantee, but other
* architectures not necessarily.

(or so)

Thanks,

Ingo