| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1375143209.22432.419.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:13:29 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for
anon-vma tree
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 11:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > Why not just try the delayed addition approach first? The spinning is
> > > time limited AFAICS, so we don't _have to_ recognize those as writers
> > > per se, only if the spinning fails and it wants to go on the waitlist.
> > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > It will change patterns, it might even change the fairness balance -
> > > but is a legit change otherwise, especially if it helps performance.
> >
> > Be very careful here. Some people (XFS) have very specific needs. Walken
> > and dchinner had a longish discussion on this a while back.
>
> Agreed - yet it's worth at least trying it out the quick way, to see the
> main effect and to see whether that explains the performance assymetry and
> invest more effort into it.
>
Ingo & Peter,
Here's a patch that moved optimistic spinning of the writer lock
acquisition before putting the writer on the wait list. It did give me
a 5% performance boost on my exim mail server workload.
It recovered a good portion of the 8% performance regression from
mutex implementation.
I think we are on the right track. Let me know if there's anything
in the patch that may cause grief to XFS.
There is some further optimization possible. We went
to the failed path within __down_write if the count field is non
zero. But in fact if the old count field was RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
there's no one active and we could have stolen the
lock when we perform our atomic op on the count field
in __down_write. Yet we go to the failed path in the current
code.
I will combine this change and also Alex's patches on rwsem together
in a patchset later.
Your comments and thoughts are most welcomed.
Tim
Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
index 0616ffe..58a4acb 100644
--- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
+++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
@@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ struct rw_semaphore {
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
struct lockdep_map dep_map;
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+ struct task_struct *owner;
+ void *spin_mlock;
+#endif
};
extern struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
@@ -55,11 +59,21 @@ static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
# define __RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(lockname)
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+#define __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) \
+ { RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE, \
+ __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.wait_lock), \
+ LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).wait_list), \
+ __RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) \
+ NULL, \
+ NULL }
+#else
#define __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) \
{ RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE, \
__RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.wait_lock), \
LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).wait_list) \
__RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) }
+#endif
#define DECLARE_RWSEM(name) \
struct rw_semaphore name = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name)
diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index 9d3a788..d97225f 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -1595,6 +1595,16 @@ config TRACEPOINTS
source "arch/Kconfig"
+config RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+ bool "Optimistic spin write acquisition for writer owned rw-sem"
+ default n
+ depends on SMP
+ help
+ Allows a writer to perform optimistic spinning if another writer own
+ the read write semaphore. If the lock owner is running, it is likely
+ to release the lock soon. Spinning gives a greater chance for writer to
+ acquire a semaphore before putting it to sleep.
+
endmenu # General setup
config HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
diff --git a/kernel/rwsem.c b/kernel/rwsem.c
index cfff143..a32990a 100644
--- a/kernel/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/rwsem.c
@@ -12,6 +12,26 @@
#include <linux/atomic.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ sem->owner = current;
+}
+
+static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ sem->owner = NULL;
+}
+#else
+static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+}
+
+static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+}
+#endif
+
/*
* lock for reading
*/
@@ -48,6 +68,7 @@ void __sched down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
+ rwsem_set_owner(sem);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_write);
@@ -59,8 +80,10 @@ int down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
int ret = __down_write_trylock(sem);
- if (ret == 1)
+ if (ret == 1) {
rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+ rwsem_set_owner(sem);
+ }
return ret;
}
@@ -86,6 +109,7 @@ void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
__up_write(sem);
+ rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(up_write);
@@ -100,6 +124,7 @@ void downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
* dependency.
*/
__downgrade_write(sem);
+ rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(downgrade_write);
@@ -122,6 +147,7 @@ void _down_write_nest_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct lockdep_map *nest)
rwsem_acquire_nest(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, nest, _RET_IP_);
LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
+ rwsem_set_owner(sem);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(_down_write_nest_lock);
@@ -141,6 +167,7 @@ void down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int subclass)
rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
+ rwsem_set_owner(sem);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_write_nested);
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 1d6e6e8..1472ff3 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
*/
#include <linux/rwsem.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/export.h>
@@ -27,6 +28,10 @@ void __init_rwsem(struct rw_semaphore *sem, const char *name,
sem->count = RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
raw_spin_lock_init(&sem->wait_lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sem->wait_list);
+#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+ sem->owner = NULL;
+ sem->spin_mlock = NULL;
+#endif
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__init_rwsem);
@@ -194,48 +199,252 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
return sem;
}
+static inline int rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
+ /* Try acquiring the write lock. */
+ if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
+ cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
+ RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
+ if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
+ rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
+ return 1;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+
+struct mspin_node {
+ struct mspin_node *next ;
+ int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
+};
+#define MLOCK(rwsem) ((struct mspin_node **)&((rwsem)->spin_mlock))
+
+static noinline
+void mspin_lock(struct mspin_node **lock, struct mspin_node *node)
+{
+ struct mspin_node *prev;
+
+ /* Init node */
+ node->locked = 0;
+ node->next = NULL;
+
+ prev = xchg(lock, node);
+ if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
+ /* Lock acquired */
+ node->locked = 1;
+ return;
+ }
+ ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
+ smp_wmb();
+ /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
+ while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
+ arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+}
+
+static void mspin_unlock(struct mspin_node **lock, struct mspin_node *node)
+{
+ struct mspin_node *next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
+
+ if (likely(!next)) {
+ /*
+ * Release the lock by setting it to NULL
+ */
+ if (cmpxchg(lock, node, NULL) == node)
+ return;
+ /* Wait until the next pointer is set */
+ while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next)))
+ arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+ }
+ ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1;
+ smp_wmb();
+}
+
+static inline int rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ long count;
+
+ count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
+retry:
+ if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
+ count = cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
+ RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS);
+ /* allow write lock stealing, try acquiring the write lock. */
+ if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ goto acquired;
+ else if (count == 0)
+ goto retry;
+ } else if (count == 0) {
+ count = cmpxchg(&sem->count, 0,
+ RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
+ if (count == 0)
+ goto acquired;
+ else if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ goto retry;
+ }
+ return 0;
+
+acquired:
+ return 1;
+}
+
+
+static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ int retval;
+ struct task_struct *owner;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
+
+ /* Spin only if active writer running */
+ if (owner)
+ retval = owner->on_cpu;
+ else
+ retval = false;
+
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ /*
+ * if lock->owner is not set, the sem owner may have just acquired
+ * it and not set the owner yet, or the sem has been released, or
+ * reader active.
+ */
+ return retval;
+}
+
+static inline bool owner_running(struct rw_semaphore *lock,
+ struct task_struct *owner)
+{
+ if (lock->owner != owner)
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_ checking
+ * lock->owner still matches owner, if that fails, owner might
+ * point to free()d memory, if it still matches, the rcu_read_lock()
+ * ensures the memory stays valid.
+ */
+ barrier();
+
+ return owner->on_cpu;
+}
+
+static noinline
+int rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
+{
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ while (owner_running(lock, owner)) {
+ if (need_resched())
+ break;
+
+ arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ /*
+ * We break out the loop above on need_resched() and when the
+ * owner changed, which is a sign for heavy contention. Return
+ * success only when lock->owner is NULL.
+ */
+ return lock->owner == NULL;
+}
+
+int rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+ struct task_struct *owner;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ /* sem->wait_lock should not be held when doing optimistic spinning */
+ if (!rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem))
+ return ret;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ for (;;) {
+ struct mspin_node node;
+
+ mspin_lock(MLOCK(sem), &node);
+ owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
+ if (owner && !rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem, owner)) {
+ mspin_unlock(MLOCK(sem), &node);
+ break;
+ }
+
+ /* wait_lock will be acquired if write_lock is obtained */
+ if (rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(sem)) {
+ mspin_unlock(MLOCK(sem), &node);
+ ret = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ mspin_unlock(MLOCK(sem), &node);
+
+ /*
+ * When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
+ * owner acquiring the lock and setting the owner field. If
+ * we're an RT task that will live-lock because we won't let
+ * the owner complete.
+ */
+ if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(current)))
+ break;
+
+ /*
+ * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
+ * everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need
+ * memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
+ * values at the cost of a few extra spins.
+ */
+ arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+
+ }
+
+ preempt_enable();
+ return ret;
+}
+#endif
+
/*
* wait until we successfully acquire the write lock
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
+ long count;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ bool waiting = true;
+ count = rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS, sem);
+#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
+ /* do optimistic spinning */
+ if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem))
+ goto done;
+#endif
/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
waiter.task = tsk;
waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
- adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ waiting = false;
list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
- count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
+ if (waiting)
+ count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count);
+ else
+ count = rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
/* If there were already threads queued before us and there are no
* active writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake
* any read locks that were queued ahead of us. */
- if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
- adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
+ if ((count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) && waiting)
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS);
/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
while (true) {
- if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
- /* Try acquiring the write lock. */
- count = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
- if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
- count += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
-
- if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
- cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, count) ==
- RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
- break;
- }
+ if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, sem))
+ break;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
@@ -250,6 +459,7 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
list_del(&waiter.list);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+done:
tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
return sem;
--
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