Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v10 6/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow limited lock stealing

[Waiman Long]

On 11/10/2015 11:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:09:26PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > @@ -291,7 +292,7 @@ static __always_inline void __pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock,
> >   void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> >   {
> >   	struct mcs_spinlock *prev, *next, *node;
> > -	u32 new, old, tail;
> > +	u32 new, old, tail, locked;
> >   	int idx;
> >
> >   	BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS>= (1U<<  _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS));
> > @@ -431,11 +432,25 @@ queue:
> >   	 * sequentiality; this is because the set_locked() function below
> >   	 * does not imply a full barrier.
> >   	 *
> > +	 * The PV pv_wait_head_or_lock function, if active, will acquire
> > +	 * the lock and return a non-zero value. So we have to skip the
> > +	 * smp_load_acquire() call. As the next PV queue head hasn't been
> > +	 * designated yet, there is no way for the locked value to become
> > +	 * _Q_SLOW_VAL. So both the set_locked() and the
> > +	 * atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() calls will be safe.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * If PV isn't active, 0 will be returned instead.
> > +	 *
> >   	 */
> > -	pv_wait_head(lock, node);
> > -	while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK)
> > +	locked = val = pv_wait_head_or_lock(lock, node);
> > +	if (locked)
> > +		goto reset_tail_or_wait_next;
> > +
> > +	while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))
> > +			&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK)
> >   		cpu_relax();
> >
> > +reset_tail_or_wait_next:
> >   	/*
> >   	 * claim the lock:
> >   	 *
> > @@ -447,8 +462,12 @@ queue:
> >   	 * to grab the lock.
> >   	 */
> >   	for (;;) {
> > -		if (val != tail) {
> > -			set_locked(lock);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * The lock value may or may not have the _Q_LOCKED_VAL bit set.
> > +		 */
> > +		if ((val&  _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail) {
> > +			if (!locked)
> > +				set_locked(lock);
> >   			break;
> >   		}
> >   		/*
> How about this instead? If we've already got _Q_LOCKED_VAL set, issuing
> that store again isn't much of a problem, the cacheline is already hot
> and we own it and its a regular store not an atomic.
>
> @@ -432,10 +433,13 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qs
>   	 * does not imply a full barrier.
>   	 *
>   	 */
> -	pv_wait_head(lock, node);
> +	if ((val = pv_wait_head_or_lock(lock, node)))
> +		goto locked;
> +
>   	while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))&  _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK)
>   		cpu_relax();
>
> +locked:
>   	/*
>   	 * claim the lock:
>   	 *
> @@ -447,7 +451,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qs
>   	 * to grab the lock.
>   	 */
>   	for (;;) {
> -		if (val != tail) {
> +		/* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */
> +		if ((val&  _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail) {
>   			set_locked(lock);
>   			break;
>   		}

That is certainly fine. I was doing that originally, but then change it 
to add an additional if.

BTW, I have a process question. Should I just resend the patch 6 or 
should I resend the whole series? I do have a couple of bugs in the 
(_Q_PENDING_BITS != 8) part of the patch that I need to fix too.

Cheers,
Longman

--
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/