Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 03:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Modify __down_read_trylock() to optimize for an unlocked rwsem and make
> it generate slightly better code.
> 
> Before this patch, down_read_trylock:
> 
>    0x0000000000000000 <+0>:     callq  0x5 <down_read_trylock+5>
>    0x0000000000000005 <+5>:     jmp    0x18 <down_read_trylock+24>
>    0x0000000000000007 <+7>:     lea    0x1(%rdx),%rcx
>    0x000000000000000b <+11>:    mov    %rdx,%rax
>    0x000000000000000e <+14>:    lock cmpxchg %rcx,(%rdi)
>    0x0000000000000013 <+19>:    cmp    %rax,%rdx
>    0x0000000000000016 <+22>:    je     0x23 <down_read_trylock+35>
>    0x0000000000000018 <+24>:    mov    (%rdi),%rdx
>    0x000000000000001b <+27>:    test   %rdx,%rdx
>    0x000000000000001e <+30>:    jns    0x7 <down_read_trylock+7>
>    0x0000000000000020 <+32>:    xor    %eax,%eax
>    0x0000000000000022 <+34>:    retq
>    0x0000000000000023 <+35>:    mov    %gs:0x0,%rax
>    0x000000000000002c <+44>:    or     $0x3,%rax
>    0x0000000000000030 <+48>:    mov    %rax,0x20(%rdi)
>    0x0000000000000034 <+52>:    mov    $0x1,%eax
>    0x0000000000000039 <+57>:    retq
> 
> After patch, down_read_trylock:
> 
>    0x0000000000000000 <+0>:	callq  0x5 <down_read_trylock+5>
>    0x0000000000000005 <+5>:	xor    %eax,%eax
>    0x0000000000000007 <+7>:	lea    0x1(%rax),%rdx
>    0x000000000000000b <+11>:	lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi)
>    0x0000000000000010 <+16>:	jne    0x29 <down_read_trylock+41>
>    0x0000000000000012 <+18>:	mov    %gs:0x0,%rax
>    0x000000000000001b <+27>:	or     $0x3,%rax
>    0x000000000000001f <+31>:	mov    %rax,0x20(%rdi)
>    0x0000000000000023 <+35>:	mov    $0x1,%eax
>    0x0000000000000028 <+40>:	retq
>    0x0000000000000029 <+41>:	test   %rax,%rax
>    0x000000000000002c <+44>:	jns    0x7 <down_read_trylock+7>
>    0x000000000000002e <+46>:	xor    %eax,%eax
>    0x0000000000000030 <+48>:	retq
> 
> By using a rwsem microbenchmark, the down_read_trylock() rate (with a
> load of 10 to lengthen the lock critical section) on a x86-64 system
> before and after the patch were:
> 
>                  Before Patch    After Patch
>    # of Threads     rlock           rlock
>    ------------     -----           -----
>         1           14,496          14,716
>         2            8,644           8,453
> 	4            6,799           6,983
> 	8            5,664           7,190
> 
> On a ARM64 system, the performance results were:
> 
>                  Before Patch    After Patch
>    # of Threads     rlock           rlock
>    ------------     -----           -----
>         1           23,676          24,488
>         2            7,697           9,502
>         4            4,945           3,440
>         8            2,641           1,603

Urgh, yes LL/SC is the obvious exception that can actually do better
here :/

Will, what say you?