Date:	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:16:48 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>, hhuang@...hat.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ipc/sem: seperate wait-for-zero and alter tasks into seperate queues

Introduce seperate queues for operations that do not modify the
semaphore values.
Advantages:
- Simpler logic in check_restart().
- Faster update_queue(): Right now, all wait-for-zero operations
  are always tested, even if the semaphore value is not 0.
- wait-for-zero gets again priority, as in linux <=3.0.9

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
---
 include/linux/sem.h |   5 +-
 ipc/sem.c           | 209 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 2 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sem.h b/include/linux/sem.h
index 53d4265..55e17f6 100644
--- a/include/linux/sem.h
+++ b/include/linux/sem.h
@@ -15,7 +15,10 @@ struct sem_array {
 	time_t			sem_otime;	/* last semop time */
 	time_t			sem_ctime;	/* last change time */
 	struct sem		*sem_base;	/* ptr to first semaphore in array */
-	struct list_head	sem_pending;	/* pending operations to be processed */
+	struct list_head	pending_alter;	/* pending operations */
+						/* that alter the array */
+	struct list_head	pending_const;	/* pending complex operations */
+						/* that do not alter semvals */
 	struct list_head	list_id;	/* undo requests on this array */
 	int			sem_nsems;	/* no. of semaphores in array */
 	int			complex_count;	/* pending complex operations */
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 1afbc57..e7f3d64 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -95,7 +95,10 @@ struct sem {
 	int	semval;		/* current value */
 	int	sempid;		/* pid of last operation */
 	spinlock_t	lock;	/* spinlock for fine-grained semtimedop */
-	struct list_head sem_pending; /* pending single-sop operations */
+	struct list_head pending_alter; /* pending single-sop operations */
+					/* that alter the semaphore */
+	struct list_head pending_const; /* pending single-sop operations */
+					/* that do not alter the semaphore*/
 } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
 
 /* One queue for each sleeping process in the system. */
@@ -152,7 +155,7 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct seq_file *s, void *it);
 /*
  * linked list protection:
  *	sem_undo.id_next,
- *	sem_array.sem_pending{,last},
+ *	sem_array.pending{_alter,_cont},
  *	sem_array.sem_undo: sem_lock() for read/write
  *	sem_undo.proc_next: only "current" is allowed to read/write that field.
  *	
@@ -337,7 +340,7 @@ static inline void sem_rmid(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct sem_array *s)
  * Without the check/retry algorithm a lockless wakeup is possible:
  * - queue.status is initialized to -EINTR before blocking.
  * - wakeup is performed by
- *	* unlinking the queue entry from sma->sem_pending
+ *	* unlinking the queue entry from the pending list
  *	* setting queue.status to IN_WAKEUP
  *	  This is the notification for the blocked thread that a
  *	  result value is imminent.
@@ -418,12 +421,14 @@ static int newary(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_params *params)
 	sma->sem_base = (struct sem *) &sma[1];
 
 	for (i = 0; i < nsems; i++) {
-		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->sem_base[i].sem_pending);
+		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->sem_base[i].pending_alter);
+		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->sem_base[i].pending_const);
 		spin_lock_init(&sma->sem_base[i].lock);
 	}
 
 	sma->complex_count = 0;
-	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->sem_pending);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->pending_alter);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->pending_const);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->list_id);
 	sma->sem_nsems = nsems;
 	sma->sem_ctime = get_seconds();
@@ -609,60 +614,130 @@ static void unlink_queue(struct sem_array *sma, struct sem_queue *q)
  * update_queue is O(N^2) when it restarts scanning the whole queue of
  * waiting operations. Therefore this function checks if the restart is
  * really necessary. It is called after a previously waiting operation
- * was completed.
+ * modified the array.
+ * Note that wait-for-zero operations are handled without restart.
  */
 static int check_restart(struct sem_array *sma, struct sem_queue *q)
 {
-	struct sem *curr;
-	struct sem_queue *h;
-
-	/* if the operation didn't modify the array, then no restart */
-	if (q->alter == 0)
-		return 0;
-
-	/* pending complex operations are too difficult to analyse */
-	if (sma->complex_count)
+	/* pending complex alter operations are too difficult to analyse */
+	if (!list_empty(&sma->pending_alter))
 		return 1;
 
 	/* we were a sleeping complex operation. Too difficult */
 	if (q->nsops > 1)
 		return 1;
 
-	curr = sma->sem_base + q->sops[0].sem_num;
+	/* It is impossible that someone waits for the new value:
+	 * - complex operations always restart.
+	 * - wait-for-zero are handled seperately.
+	 * - q is a previously sleeping simple operation that
+	 *   altered the array. It must be a decrement, because
+	 *   simple increments never sleep.
+	 * - If there are older (higher priority) decrements
+	 *   in the queue, then they have observed the original
+	 *   semval value and couldn't proceed. The operation
+	 *   decremented to value - thus they won't proceed either.
+	 */
+	return 0;
+}
 
-	/* No-one waits on this queue */
-	if (list_empty(&curr->sem_pending))
-		return 0;
+/**
+ * wake_const_ops(sma, semnum, pt) - Wake up non-alter tasks
+ * @sma: semaphore array.
+ * @semnum: semaphore that was modified.
+ * @pt: list head for the tasks that must be woken up.
+ *
+ * wake_const_ops must be called after a semaphore in a semaphore array
+ * was set to 0. If complex const operations are pending, wake_const_ops must
+ * be called with semnum = -1, as well as with the number of each modified
+ * semaphore.
+ * The tasks that must be woken up are added to @pt. The return code
+ * is stored in q->pid.
+ * The function returns 1 if at least one operation was completed successfully.
+ */
+static int wake_const_ops(struct sem_array *sma, int semnum,
+				struct list_head *pt)
+{
+	struct sem_queue *q;
+	struct list_head *walk;
+	struct list_head *pending_list;
+	int semop_completed = 0;
+
+	if (semnum == -1)
+		pending_list = &sma->pending_const;
+	else
+		pending_list = &sma->sem_base[semnum].pending_const;
+
+	walk = pending_list->next;
+	while (walk != pending_list) {
+		int error;
+
+		q = container_of(walk, struct sem_queue, list);
+		walk = walk->next;
+
+		error = try_atomic_semop(sma, q->sops, q->nsops,
+						q->undo, q->pid);
+
+		if (error <= 0) {
+			/* operation completed, remove from queue & wakeup */
+
+			unlink_queue(sma, q);
+
+			wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(pt, q, error);
+			if (error == 0)
+				semop_completed = 1;
+		}
+	}
+	return semop_completed;
+}
 
-	/* the new semaphore value */
-	if (curr->semval) {
-		/* It is impossible that someone waits for the new value:
-		 * - q is a previously sleeping simple operation that
-		 *   altered the array. It must be a decrement, because
-		 *   simple increments never sleep.
-		 * - The value is not 0, thus wait-for-zero won't proceed.
-		 * - If there are older (higher priority) decrements
-		 *   in the queue, then they have observed the original
-		 *   semval value and couldn't proceed. The operation
-		 *   decremented to value - thus they won't proceed either.
+/**
+ * do_smart_wakeup_zero(sma, sops, nsops, pt) - wakeup all wait for zero tasks
+ * @sma: semaphore array
+ * @sops: operations that were performed
+ * @nsops: number of operations
+ * @pt: list head of the tasks that must be woken up.
+ *
+ * do_smart_wakeup_zero() checks all required queue for wait-for-zero
+ * operations, based on the actual changes that were performed on the
+ * semaphore array.
+ * The function returns 1 if at least one operation was completed successfully.
+ */
+static int do_smart_wakeup_zero(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
+					int nsops, struct list_head *pt)
+{
+	int i;
+	int semop_completed = 0;
+	int got_zero = 0;
+
+	/* first: the per-semaphore queues, if known */
+	if (sops) {
+		for (i = 0; i < nsops; i++) {
+			int num = sops[i].sem_num;
+
+			if (sma->sem_base[num].semval == 0) {
+				got_zero = 1;
+				semop_completed |= wake_const_ops(sma, num, pt);
+			}
+		}
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * No sops means modified semaphores not known.
+		 * Assume all were changed.
 		 */
-		BUG_ON(q->sops[0].sem_op >= 0);
-		return 0;
+		for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
+			if (sma->sem_base[i].semval == 0)
+				semop_completed |= wake_const_ops(sma, i, pt);
+		}
 	}
 	/*
-	 * semval is 0. Check if there are wait-for-zero semops.
-	 * They must be the first entries in the per-semaphore queue
+	 * If one of the modified semaphores got 0,
+	 * then check the global queue, too.
 	 */
-	h = list_first_entry(&curr->sem_pending, struct sem_queue, list);
-	BUG_ON(h->nsops != 1);
-	BUG_ON(h->sops[0].sem_num != q->sops[0].sem_num);
+	if (got_zero)
+		semop_completed |= wake_const_ops(sma, -1, pt);
 
-	/* Yes, there is a wait-for-zero semop. Restart */
-	if (h->sops[0].sem_op == 0)
-		return 1;
-
-	/* Again - no-one is waiting for the new value. */
-	return 0;
+	return semop_completed;
 }
 
 
@@ -678,6 +753,8 @@ static int check_restart(struct sem_array *sma, struct sem_queue *q)
  * semaphore.
  * The tasks that must be woken up are added to @pt. The return code
  * is stored in q->pid.
+ * The function internally checks if const operations can now succeed.
+ *
  * The function return 1 if at least one semop was completed successfully.
  */
 static int update_queue(struct sem_array *sma, int semnum, struct list_head *pt)
@@ -688,9 +765,9 @@ static int update_queue(struct sem_array *sma, int semnum, struct list_head *pt)
 	int semop_completed = 0;
 
 	if (semnum == -1)
-		pending_list = &sma->sem_pending;
+		pending_list = &sma->pending_alter;
 	else
-		pending_list = &sma->sem_base[semnum].sem_pending;
+		pending_list = &sma->sem_base[semnum].pending_alter;
 
 again:
 	walk = pending_list->next;
@@ -702,13 +779,12 @@ again:
 
 		/* If we are scanning the single sop, per-semaphore list of
 		 * one semaphore and that semaphore is 0, then it is not
-		 * necessary to scan the "alter" entries: simple increments
+		 * necessary to scan further: simple increments
 		 * that affect only one entry succeed immediately and cannot
 		 * be in the  per semaphore pending queue, and decrements
 		 * cannot be successful if the value is already 0.
 		 */
-		if (semnum != -1 && sma->sem_base[semnum].semval == 0 &&
-				q->alter)
+		if (semnum != -1 && sma->sem_base[semnum].semval == 0)
 			break;
 
 		error = try_atomic_semop(sma, q->sops, q->nsops,
@@ -724,6 +800,7 @@ again:
 			restart = 0;
 		} else {
 			semop_completed = 1;
+			do_smart_wakeup_zero(sma, q->sops, q->nsops, pt);
 			restart = check_restart(sma, q);
 		}
 
@@ -742,8 +819,8 @@ again:
  * @otime: force setting otime
  * @pt: list head of the tasks that must be woken up.
  *
- * do_smart_update() does the required called to update_queue, based on the
- * actual changes that were performed on the semaphore array.
+ * do_smart_update() does the required calls to update_queue and wakeup_zero,
+ * based on the actual changes that were performed on the semaphore array.
  * Note that the function does not do the actual wake-up: the caller is
  * responsible for calling wake_up_sem_queue_do(@pt).
  * It is safe to perform this call after dropping all locks.
@@ -754,6 +831,8 @@ static void do_smart_update(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops, int nsop
 	int i;
 	int progress;
 
+	otime |= do_smart_wakeup_zero(sma, sops, nsops, pt);
+
 	progress = 1;
 retry_global:
 	if (sma->complex_count) {
@@ -813,14 +892,14 @@ static int count_semncnt (struct sem_array * sma, ushort semnum)
 	struct sem_queue * q;
 
 	semncnt = 0;
-	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->sem_base[semnum].sem_pending, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->sem_base[semnum].pending_alter, list) {
 		struct sembuf * sops = q->sops;
 		BUG_ON(sops->sem_num != semnum);
 		if ((sops->sem_op < 0) && !(sops->sem_flg & IPC_NOWAIT))
 			semncnt++;
 	}
 
-	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->sem_pending, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->pending_alter, list) {
 		struct sembuf * sops = q->sops;
 		int nsops = q->nsops;
 		int i;
@@ -839,14 +918,14 @@ static int count_semzcnt (struct sem_array * sma, ushort semnum)
 	struct sem_queue * q;
 
 	semzcnt = 0;
-	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->sem_base[semnum].sem_pending, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->sem_base[semnum].pending_const, list) {
 		struct sembuf * sops = q->sops;
 		BUG_ON(sops->sem_num != semnum);
 		if ((sops->sem_op == 0) && !(sops->sem_flg & IPC_NOWAIT))
 			semzcnt++;
 	}
 
-	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->sem_pending, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(q, &sma->pending_const, list) {
 		struct sembuf * sops = q->sops;
 		int nsops = q->nsops;
 		int i;
@@ -884,13 +963,22 @@ static void freeary(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp)
 
 	/* Wake up all pending processes and let them fail with EIDRM. */
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tasks);
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sma->sem_pending, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sma->pending_const, list) {
+		unlink_queue(sma, q);
+		wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(&tasks, q, -EIDRM);
+	}
+
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sma->pending_alter, list) {
 		unlink_queue(sma, q);
 		wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(&tasks, q, -EIDRM);
 	}
 	for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
 		struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + i;
-		list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sem->sem_pending, list) {
+		list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sem->pending_const, list) {
+			unlink_queue(sma, q);
+			wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(&tasks, q, -EIDRM);
+		}
+		list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sem->pending_alter, list) {
 			unlink_queue(sma, q);
 			wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(&tasks, q, -EIDRM);
 		}
@@ -1654,14 +1742,15 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
 		curr = &sma->sem_base[sops->sem_num];
 
 		if (alter)
-			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &curr->sem_pending);
+			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &curr->pending_alter);
 		else
-			list_add(&queue.list, &curr->sem_pending);
+			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &curr->pending_const);
 	} else {
 		if (alter)
-			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->sem_pending);
+			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->pending_alter);
 		else
-			list_add(&queue.list, &sma->sem_pending);
+			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->pending_const);
+
 		sma->complex_count++;
 	}
 
-- 
1.8.1.4

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists