Re: [PATCH] mutex: Speed up mutex_spin_on_owner() by not taking the RCU lock

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 0000000000000030 <mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.4>:
>   30:	48 3b 37             	cmp    (%rdi),%rsi
>   33:	48 8d 4e 28          	lea    0x28(%rsi),%rcx
>   37:	75 4e                	jne    87 <mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.4+0x57>
>   39:	55                   	push   %rbp
>   3a:	45 31 c0             	xor    %r8d,%r8d
>   3d:	65 4c 8b 0c 25 00 00 	mov    %gs:0x0,%r9
>   44:	00 00 
>   46:	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   49:	48 83 ec 10          	sub    $0x10,%rsp
>   4d:	eb 08                	jmp    57 <mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.4+0x27>
>   4f:	90                   	nop
>   50:	f3 90                	pause  
>   52:	48 3b 37             	cmp    (%rdi),%rsi
>   55:	75 29                	jne    80 <mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.4+0x50>
>   57:	44 89 c0             	mov    %r8d,%eax
>   5a:	90                   	nop
>   5b:	90                   	nop
>   5c:	90                   	nop
>   5d:	8b 11                	mov    (%rcx),%edx
>   5f:	90                   	nop
>   60:	90                   	nop
>   61:	90                   	nop

Yeah, so what I missed here are those nops: placeholders for the 
STAC/CLAC instructions on x86... and this is what Linus mentioned 
about the clac() overhead.

But this could be solved I think: by adding a 
copy_from_kernel_inatomic() primitive which simply leaves out the 
STAC/CLAC sequence: as these are always guaranteed to be kernel 
addresses, the SMAP fault should not be generated.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/