[PATCH 3/3] locking/rwsem: Scan the wait_list for readers only once

From: Davidlohr Bueso
Date: Fri Aug 05 2016 - 04:06:58 EST

When wanting to wakeup readers, __rwsem_mark_wakeup() currently
iterates the wait_list twice while looking to wakeup the first N
queued reader-tasks. While this can be quite inefficient, it was
there such that a awoken reader would be first and foremost
acknowledged by the lock counter.

Keeping the same logic, we can further benefit from the use of
wake_qs and avoid entirely the first wait_list iteration that sets
the counter as wake_up_process() isn't going to occur right away,
and therefore we maintain the counter->list order of going about
things.

Other than saving cycles with O(n) "scanning", this change also
nicely cleans up a good chunk of __rwsem_mark_wakeup(); both
visually and less tedious to read.

For example, the following improvements where seen on some will
it scale microbenchmarks, on a 48-core Haswell:

v4.7 v4.7-rwsem-v1
Hmean signal1-processes-8 5792691.42 ( 0.00%) 5771971.04 ( -0.36%)
Hmean signal1-processes-12 6081199.96 ( 0.00%) 6072174.38 ( -0.15%)
Hmean signal1-processes-21 3071137.71 ( 0.00%) 3041336.72 ( -0.97%)
Hmean signal1-processes-48 3712039.98 ( 0.00%) 3708113.59 ( -0.11%)
Hmean signal1-processes-79 4464573.45 ( 0.00%) 4682798.66 ( 4.89%)
Hmean signal1-processes-110 4486842.01 ( 0.00%) 4633781.71 ( 3.27%)
Hmean signal1-processes-141 4611816.83 ( 0.00%) 4692725.38 ( 1.75%)
Hmean signal1-processes-172 4638157.05 ( 0.00%) 4714387.86 ( 1.64%)
Hmean signal1-processes-203 4465077.80 ( 0.00%) 4690348.07 ( 5.05%)
Hmean signal1-processes-224 4410433.74 ( 0.00%) 4687534.43 ( 6.28%)

Stddev signal1-processes-8 6360.47 ( 0.00%) 8455.31 ( 32.94%)
Stddev signal1-processes-12 4004.98 ( 0.00%) 9156.13 (128.62%)
Stddev signal1-processes-21 3273.14 ( 0.00%) 5016.80 ( 53.27%)
Stddev signal1-processes-48 28420.25 ( 0.00%) 26576.22 ( -6.49%)
Stddev signal1-processes-79 22038.34 ( 0.00%) 18992.70 (-13.82%)
Stddev signal1-processes-110 23226.93 ( 0.00%) 17245.79 (-25.75%)
Stddev signal1-processes-141 6358.98 ( 0.00%) 7636.14 ( 20.08%)
Stddev signal1-processes-172 9523.70 ( 0.00%) 4824.75 (-49.34%)
Stddev signal1-processes-203 13915.33 ( 0.00%) 9326.33 (-32.98%)
Stddev signal1-processes-224 15573.94 ( 0.00%) 10613.82 (-31.85%)

Other runs that saw improvements include context_switch and pipe; and
as expected, this is particularly highlighted on larger thread counts
as it becomes more expensive to walk the list twice.

No change in wakeup ordering or semantics.

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index e02fe3289b5a..2337b4bb2366 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -125,12 +125,14 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type,
struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
- struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
- struct task_struct *tsk;
- struct list_head *next;
- long loop, oldcount, woken = 0, adjustment = 0;
+ struct rwsem_waiter *waiter, *tmp;
+ long oldcount, woken = 0, adjustment = 0;

- waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
+ /*
+ * Take a peek at the queue head waiter such that we can determine
+ * the wakeup(s) to perform.
+ */
+ waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list, struct rwsem_waiter, list);

if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY) {
@@ -180,36 +182,21 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,

/*
* Grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
- * of the queue. Note we increment the 'active part' of the count by
- * the number of readers before waking any processes up.
+ * of the queue. We know that woken will be at least 1 as we accounted
+ * for above. Note we increment the 'active part' of the count by the
+ * number of readers before waking any processes up.
*/
- do {
- woken++;
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(waiter, tmp, &sem->wait_list, list) {
+ struct task_struct *tsk;

- if (waiter->list.next == &sem->wait_list)
+ if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
break;

- waiter = list_entry(waiter->list.next,
- struct rwsem_waiter, list);
-
- } while (waiter->type != RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE);
-
- adjustment = woken * RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS - adjustment;
- if (waiter->type != RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
- /* hit end of list above */
- adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
-
- if (adjustment)
- atomic_long_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
-
- next = sem->wait_list.next;
- loop = woken;
- do {
- waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
- next = waiter->list.next;
+ woken++;
tsk = waiter->task;

wake_q_add(wake_q, tsk);
+ list_del(&waiter->list);
/*
* Ensure that the last operation is setting the reader
* waiter to nil such that rwsem_down_read_failed() cannot
@@ -217,10 +204,16 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
* to the task to wakeup.
*/
smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);
- } while (--loop);
+ }

- sem->wait_list.next = next;
- next->prev = &sem->wait_list;
+ adjustment = woken * RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS - adjustment;
+ if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
+ /* hit end of list above */
+ adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ }
+
+ if (adjustment)
+ atomic_long_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
}

/*
@@ -245,7 +238,8 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
count = atomic_long_add_return(adjustment, &sem->count);

- /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es).
+ /*
+ * If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es).
*
* If there are no writers and we are first in the queue,
* wake our own waiter to join the existing active readers !
--
2.6.6