linux-kernel - [PATCH] mutex: do not unnecessarily deal with waiters

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1369353543.1770.0.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Thu, 23 May 2013 16:59:03 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Subject: [PATCH] mutex: do not unnecessarily deal with waiters

From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>

Upon entering the slowpath, we immediately attempt to acquire the lock
by checking if it is already unlocked. If we are lucky enough that this
is the case, then we don't need to deal with any waiter related logic.

Furthermore any checks for an empty wait_list are unnecessary as we
already know that count is non-negative and hence no one is waiting for
the lock.

Move the count check and xchg calls to be done before any waiters are
setup - including waiter debugging. Upon failure to acquire the lock,
the xchg sets the counter to 0, instead of -1 as it was originally.
This can be done here since we set it back to -1 right at the beginning
of the loop so other waiters are woken up when the lock is released.

When tested on a 8-socket (80 core) system against a vanilla 3.10-rc1
kernel, this patch provides some small performance benefits (+2-6%).
While it could be considered in the noise level, the average percentages
were stable across multiple runs and no performance regressions were seen.
Two big winners, for small amounts of users (10-100), were the short and
compute workloads had a +19.36% and +%15.76% in jobs per minute.
  
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
---
 kernel/mutex.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/mutex.c b/kernel/mutex.c
index ad53a66..a8cd741 100644
--- a/kernel/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
 		if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner)) {
 			mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
-			break;
+			goto slowpath;
 		}
 
 		if ((atomic_read(&lock->count) == 1) &&
@@ -314,8 +314,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 			lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
 			mutex_set_owner(lock);
 			mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
-			preempt_enable();
-			return 0;
+			goto done;
 		}
 		mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
 
@@ -326,7 +325,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		 * the owner complete.
 		 */
 		if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task)))
-			break;
+			goto slowpath;
 
 		/*
 		 * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
@@ -340,6 +339,14 @@ slowpath:
 #endif
 	spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
+	/* once more, can we acquire the lock? */
+	if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1)) {
+		lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
+		mutex_set_owner(lock);
+		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+		goto done;
+	}
+
 	debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
 	debug_mutex_add_waiter(lock, &waiter, task_thread_info(task));
 
@@ -347,9 +354,6 @@ slowpath:
 	list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &lock->wait_list);
 	waiter.task = task;
 
-	if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
-		goto done;
-
 	lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip);
 
 	for (;;) {
@@ -363,7 +367,7 @@ slowpath:
 		 * other waiters:
 		 */
 		if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) &&
-		   (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
+		    (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
 			break;
 
 		/*
@@ -388,9 +392,8 @@ slowpath:
 		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	}
 
-done:
+	/* got the lock - cleanup and rejoice! */
 	lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
-	/* got the lock - rejoice! */
 	mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, current_thread_info());
 	mutex_set_owner(lock);
 
@@ -399,10 +402,9 @@ done:
 		atomic_set(&lock->count, 0);
 
 	spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
-
 	debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
+done:
 	preempt_enable();
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.11.7




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/