Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: Add qspinlock support based on Zabha extension

From: Guo Ren
Date: Mon Jun 03 2024 - 07:44:44 EST

Next message: Michael Walle: "Re: [PATCH 00/20] drm/bridge: tc358775: proper bridge bringup and code cleanup"
Previous message: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: "Re: [PATCH 00/14] alpha: cleanups for 6.10"
In reply to: Alexandre Ghiti: "Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: Add qspinlock support based on Zabha extension"
Next in thread: Alexandre Ghiti: "Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: Add qspinlock support based on Zabha extension"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:34 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2024 13:28, Guo Ren wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:49 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi Guo,
> >>
> >> On 31/05/2024 15:10, Guo Ren wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 9:03 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Guo,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:24 AM Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:18 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>> In order to produce a generic kernel, a user can select
> >>>>>> CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS which will fallback at runtime to the ticket
> >>>>>> spinlock implementation if Zabha is not present.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that we can't use alternatives here because the discovery of
> >>>>>> extensions is done too late and we need to start with the qspinlock
> >>>>>> implementation because the ticket spinlock implementation would pollute
> >>>>>> the spinlock value, so let's use static keys.
> >>> Zabha is not a prerequisite for qspinlock; the prerequisite for
> >>> qspinlock is the *forward progress guarantee* in the atomic operation
> >>> loop during intense contention. Even with Zabha enabled to meet the
> >>> requirements of xchg_tail, that still only applies when the number of
> >>> CPUs is less than 16K. The qspinlock uses cmpxchg loop instead of
> >>> xchg_tail when the number of cores is more than 16K. Thus, hardware
> >>> support for Zabha does not equate to the safe use of qspinlock.
> >>
> >> But if we have Zacas to implement cmpxchg(), we still provide the
> >> "forward progress guarantee" then right? Let me know if I missed something.
> > The qspinlock needs a "forward progress guarantee," not Zacas, and
> > Zabha could give a guarantee to qspinlock xchg_tail (CPUs < 16K) with
> > AMOSWAP.H instruction. But, using "LR/SC pairs" also could give enough
> > fwd guarantee that depends on the micro-arch design of the riscv core.
> > I think the help of AMO instead of LR/SC is it could off-load AMO
> > operations from LSU to CIU(Next Level Cache or Interconnect), which
> > gains better performance. "LR/SC pairs" only provide Near-Atomic, but
> > AMO gives Far-Atomic additionally.
>
>
> I understand qspinlocks require forward progress and that your company's
> LR/SC implementations provide such guarantee, I'm not arguing against
> your new extension proposal.
>
> It seemed to me in your previous message that you implied that when
> NR_CPUS > 16k, we should not use qspinlocks. My question was: "Don't
> Zacas provide such guarantee"? I think it does, so qspinlocks should
> actually depend on Zabha *and* Zacas. Is that correct to you?
See kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
#if _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8 (NR_CPUS < 16K)
static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
{
/*
* We can use relaxed semantics since the caller ensures that the
* MCS node is properly initialized before updating the tail.
*/
return (u32)xchg_relaxed(&lock->tail,
tail >> _Q_TAIL_OFFSET) << _Q_TAIL_OFFSET;
}
#else /* NR_CPUS >= 16K */
static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
{
u32 old, new;

old = atomic_read(&lock->val);
do {
new = (old & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
/*
* We can use relaxed semantics since the caller ensures that
* the MCS node is properly initialized before updating the
* tail.
*/
} while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &old, new));

return old;
}
#endif

Look! You, Zacas, still need an additional FWD guarantee to break the
loop. That is, how *stickiness* your cache line is?

>
> Let me know if I misunderstood something again.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
>
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >>> Therefore, I would like to propose a new ISA extension: Zafpg(Atomic
> >>> Forward Progress Guarantee). If RISC-V vendors can ensure the progress
> >>> of LR/SC or CMPXCHG LOOP at the microarchitectural level or if cache
> >>> lines are sufficiently sticky, they could then claim support for this
> >>> extension. Linux could then select different spinlock implementations
> >>> based on this extension's support or not.
> >>>
> >>>>>> This is largely based on Guo's work and Leonardo reviews at [1].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20231225125847.2778638-1-guoren@xxxxxxxxxx/ [1]
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> .../locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt | 2 +-
> >>>>>> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
> >>>>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild | 4 +-
> >>>>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 18 +++++++++
> >>>>>> include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h | 2 +
> >>>>>> include/asm-generic/ticket_spinlock.h | 2 +
> >>>>>> 7 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt b/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt
> >>>>>> index 22f2990392ff..cf26042480e2 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt
> >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/features/locking/queued-spinlocks/arch-support.txt
> >>>>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> >>>>>> | openrisc: | ok |
> >>>>>> | parisc: | TODO |
> >>>>>> | powerpc: | ok |
> >>>>>> - | riscv: | TODO |
> >>>>>> + | riscv: | ok |
> >>>>>> | s390: | TODO |
> >>>>>> | sh: | TODO |
> >>>>>> | sparc: | ok |
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> >>>>>> index 184a9edb04e0..ccf1703edeb9 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> >>>>>> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ config RISCV
> >>>>>> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SHADOW_CALL_STACK if HAVE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> >>>>>> select ARCH_USE_MEMTEST
> >>>>>> select ARCH_USE_QUEUED_RWLOCKS
> >>>>>> + select ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS if TOOLCHAIN_HAS_ZABHA
> >>>>> Using qspinlock or not depends on real hardware capabilities, not the
> >>>>> compiler flag. That's why I introduced combo-spinlock, ticket-spinlock
> >>>>> & qspinlock three Kconfigs, and the combo-spinlock would compat all
> >>>>> hardware platforms but waste some qspinlock code size.
> >>>> You're right, and I think your comment matches what Conor mentioned
> >>>> about the lack of clarity with some extensions: TOOLCHAIN_HAS_ZABHA
> >>>> will allow a platform with Zabha capability to use qspinlocks. But if
> >>>> the hardware does not, it will fallback to the ticket spinlocks.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I agree that looking at the config alone may be misleading, even
> >>>> though it will work as expected at runtime. So I agree with you:
> >>>> unless anyone is strongly against the combo spinlocks, I will do what
> >>>> you suggest and add them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks again for your initial work,
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>>>> select ARCH_USES_CFI_TRAPS if CFI_CLANG
> >>>>>> select ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH if SMP && MMU
> >>>>>> select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_TOPDOWN_MMAP_LAYOUT if MMU
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild
> >>>>>> index 504f8b7e72d4..ad72f2bd4cc9 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/Kbuild
> >>>>>> @@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
> >>>>>> generic-y += early_ioremap.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += flat.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += kvm_para.h
> >>>>>> +generic-y += mcs_spinlock.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += parport.h
> >>>>>> -generic-y += spinlock.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += spinlock_types.h
> >>>>>> +generic-y += ticket_spinlock.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += qrwlock.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += qrwlock_types.h
> >>>>>> +generic-y += qspinlock.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += user.h
> >>>>>> generic-y += vmlinux.lds.h
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h
> >>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>> index 000000000000..e00429ac20ed
> >>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/spinlock.h
> >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> >>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#ifndef __ASM_RISCV_SPINLOCK_H
> >>>>>> +#define __ASM_RISCV_SPINLOCK_H
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
> >>>>>> +#define _Q_PENDING_LOOPS (1 << 9)
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#define __no_arch_spinlock_redefine
> >>>>>> +#include <asm/ticket_spinlock.h>
> >>>>>> +#include <asm/qspinlock.h>
> >>>>>> +#include <asm/alternative.h>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(qspinlock_key);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#define SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(op, type, type_lock) \
> >>>>>> +static __always_inline type arch_spin_##op(type_lock lock) \
> >>>>>> +{ \
> >>>>>> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&qspinlock_key)) \
> >>>>>> + return queued_spin_##op(lock); \
> >>>>>> + return ticket_spin_##op(lock); \
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(lock, void, arch_spinlock_t *)
> >>>>>> +SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(unlock, void, arch_spinlock_t *)
> >>>>>> +SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(is_locked, int, arch_spinlock_t *)
> >>>>>> +SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(is_contended, int, arch_spinlock_t *)
> >>>>>> +SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(trylock, bool, arch_spinlock_t *)
> >>>>>> +SPINLOCK_BASE_DECLARE(value_unlocked, int, arch_spinlock_t)
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#else
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#include <asm/ticket_spinlock.h>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#endif
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#include <asm/qrwlock.h>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#endif /* __ASM_RISCV_SPINLOCK_H */
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c
> >>>>>> index 4f73c0ae44b2..31ce75522fd4 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c
> >>>>>> @@ -244,6 +244,23 @@ static void __init parse_dtb(void)
> >>>>>> #endif
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(qspinlock_key);
> >>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(qspinlock_key);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +static void __init riscv_spinlock_init(void)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + asm goto(ALTERNATIVE("nop", "j %[qspinlock]", 0, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZABHA, 1)
> >>>>>> + : : : : qspinlock);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + static_branch_disable(&qspinlock_key);
> >>>>>> + pr_info("Ticket spinlock: enabled\n");
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + return;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +qspinlock:
> >>>>>> + pr_info("Queued spinlock: enabled\n");
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> extern void __init init_rt_signal_env(void);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> >>>>>> @@ -295,6 +312,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> >>>>>> riscv_set_dma_cache_alignment();
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> riscv_user_isa_enable();
> >>>>>> + riscv_spinlock_init();
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> bool arch_cpu_is_hotpluggable(int cpu)
> >>>>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
> >>>>>> index 0655aa5b57b2..bf47cca2c375 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
> >>>>>> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ static __always_inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> #endif
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +#ifndef __no_arch_spinlock_redefine
> >>>>>> /*
> >>>>>> * Remapping spinlock architecture specific functions to the corresponding
> >>>>>> * queued spinlock functions.
> >>>>>> @@ -146,5 +147,6 @@ static __always_inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> >>>>>> #define arch_spin_lock(l) queued_spin_lock(l)
> >>>>>> #define arch_spin_trylock(l) queued_spin_trylock(l)
> >>>>>> #define arch_spin_unlock(l) queued_spin_unlock(l)
> >>>>>> +#endif
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_QSPINLOCK_H */
> >>>>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/ticket_spinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/ticket_spinlock.h
> >>>>>> index cfcff22b37b3..325779970d8a 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/ticket_spinlock.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/ticket_spinlock.h
> >>>>>> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ static __always_inline int ticket_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >>>>>> return (s16)((val >> 16) - (val & 0xffff)) > 1;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +#ifndef __no_arch_spinlock_redefine
> >>>>>> /*
> >>>>>> * Remapping spinlock architecture specific functions to the corresponding
> >>>>>> * ticket spinlock functions.
> >>>>>> @@ -99,5 +100,6 @@ static __always_inline int ticket_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >>>>>> #define arch_spin_lock(l) ticket_spin_lock(l)
> >>>>>> #define arch_spin_trylock(l) ticket_spin_trylock(l)
> >>>>>> #define arch_spin_unlock(l) ticket_spin_unlock(l)
> >>>>>> +#endif
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_TICKET_SPINLOCK_H */
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.39.2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Best Regards
> >>>>> Guo Ren
> >>>
> >
> >

--
Best Regards
Guo Ren

Next message: Michael Walle: "Re: [PATCH 00/20] drm/bridge: tc358775: proper bridge bringup and code cleanup"
Previous message: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: "Re: [PATCH 00/14] alpha: cleanups for 6.10"
In reply to: Alexandre Ghiti: "Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: Add qspinlock support based on Zabha extension"
Next in thread: Alexandre Ghiti: "Re: [PATCH 7/7] riscv: Add qspinlock support based on Zabha extension"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]