Re: [PATCH 05/11] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:57:30AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > When we allow for a max NR_CPUS < 2^14 we can optimize the pending
> > wait-acquire and the xchg_tail() operations.
> > 
> > By growing the pending bit to a byte, we reduce the tail to 16bit.
> > This means we can use xchg16 for the tail part and do away with all
> > the repeated compxchg() operations.
> > 
> > This in turn allows us to unconditionally acquire; the locked state
> > as observed by the wait loops cannot change. And because both locked
> > and pending are now a full byte we can use simple stores for the
> > state transition, obviating one atomic operation entirely.
> 
> I have to ask - how much more performance do you get from this?
> 
> Is this extra atomic operation hurting that much?

Its not extra, its a cmpxchg loop vs an unconditional xchg.

And yes, its somewhat tedious to show, but on 4 socket systems you can
really see it make a difference. I'll try and run some numbers, I need
to reinstall the box.

(there were numbers in the previous threads, but you're right, I
should've put some in the Changelog).

> >  /**
> >   * queue_spin_lock_slowpath - acquire the queue spinlock
> > @@ -173,8 +259,13 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
> >  	 * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * *,1,1 -> *,1,0
> > +	 *
> > +	 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
> > +	 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
> > +	 * sequentiality; this because not all clear_pending_set_locked()
> > +	 * implementations imply full barriers.
> >  	 */
> > -	while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
> > +	while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter)) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
> 
> lock->val.counter? Ugh, all to deal with the 'int' -> 'u32' (or 'u64')

No, to do atomic_t -> int.

> Could you introduce a macro in atomic.h called 'atomic_read_raw' which
> would do the this? Like this:

That would be worse I think. It looks like a function returning an
rvalue whereas we really want an lvalue.

Attachment: pgpwtFRrZDIl_.pgp
Description: PGP signature