Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32

[Guo Ren]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:09 PM Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/21 11:13 PM, Guo Ren wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:01:41PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> >>> u32 a = 0x55aa66bb;
> >>> u16 *ptr = &a;
> >>>
> >>> CPU0                       CPU1
> >>> =========             =========
> >>> xchg16(ptr, new)     while(1)
> >>>                                      WRITE_ONCE(*(ptr + 1), x);
> >>>
> >>> When we use lr.w/sc.w implement xchg16, it'll cause CPU0 deadlock.
> >> Then I think your LL/SC is broken.
> >>
> >> That also means you really don't want to build super complex locking
> >> primitives on top, because that live-lock will percolate through.
> > Do you mean the below implementation has live-lock risk?
> > +static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
> > +{
> > +       u32 old, new, val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> > +
> > +       for (;;) {
> > +               new = (val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
> > +               old = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, new);
> > +               if (old == val)
> > +                       break;
> > +
> > +               val = old;
> > +       }
> > +       return old;
> > +}
> If there is a continuous stream of incoming spinlock takers, it is
> possible that some cpus may have to wait a long time to set the tail
> right. However, this should only happen on artificial workload. I doubt
> it will happen with real workload or with limit number of cpus.
Yes, I agree or it couldn't with NR_CPU > 16k.

So the implementation above is suitable for non-sub-word-xchg architecture.

> >
> >> Step 1 would be to get your architecute fixed such that it can provide
> >> fwd progress guarantees for LL/SC. Otherwise there's absolutely no point
> >> in building complex systems with it.
> > Quote Waiman's comment [1] on xchg16 optimization:
> >
> > "This optimization is needed to make the qspinlock achieve performance
> > parity with ticket spinlock at light load."
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/1429901803-29771-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@xxxxxx/
> >
> > So for a non-xhg16 machine:
> >   - ticket-lock for small numbers of CPUs
> >   - qspinlock for large numbers of CPUs
> >
> > Okay, I'll put all of them into the next patch :P
> >
> It is true that qspinlock may not offer much advantage when the number
> of cpus is small. It shines for systems with many cpus. You may use
> NR_CPUS to determine if the default should be ticket or qspinlock with
> user override. To determine the right NR_CPUS threshold, you may need to
> run on real SMP RISCV systems to find out.
We'd give the choice to the users, and they could select ticket-lock
or qspinlock in riscv.

-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/