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

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 07:44:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > No RCU overhead, and this is the access to owner->on_cpu:
> > > 
> > >   69:	49 8b 81 10 c0 ff ff 	mov    -0x3ff0(%r9),%rax
> > > 
> > > Totally untested and all that, I only built the mutex.o.
> > > 
> > > What do you think? Am I missing anything?
> > 
> > I suspect it is good, but let's take a look at Linus' summary of the code:
> > 
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         while (sem->owner == owner) {
> >                 if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched())
> >                         break;
> >                 cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> >         }
> >         rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> Note that I patched the mutex case as a prototype, which is more 
> commonly used than rwsem-xadd. But the rwsem case is similar as well.
> 
> > The cpu_relax_lowlatency() looks to have barrier() semantics, so the 
> > sem->owner should get reloaded every time through the loop.  This is 
> > needed, because otherwise the task structure could get freed and 
> > reallocated as something else that happened to have the field at the 
> > ->on_cpu offset always zero, resulting in an infinite loop.
> 
> So at least with the get_kernel(..., &owner->on_cpu) approach, the 
> get_kernel() copy has barrier semantics as well (it's in assembly), so 
> it will be reloaded in every iteration in a natural fashion.

Good point, even better!

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/