Currently the percpu-rwsem has two issues: - it switches to (global) atomic ops while a writer is waiting; which could be quite a while and slows down releasing the readers. - it employs synchronize_sched_expedited() _twice_ which is evil and should die -- it shoots IPIs around the machine. This patch cures the first problem by ordering the reader-state vs reader-count (see the comments in __percpu_down_read() and percpu_down_write()). This changes a global atomic op into a full memory barrier, which doesn't have the global cacheline contention. It cures the second problem by employing the rcu-sync primitives by Oleg which reduces to no sync_sched() calls in the 'normal' case of no write contention -- global locks had better be rare, and has a maximum of one sync_sched() call in case of contention. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) --- include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h | 62 +++++++++- kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 243 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 2 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-) --- a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h +++ b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h @@ -5,18 +5,64 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include struct percpu_rw_semaphore { - unsigned int __percpu *fast_read_ctr; - atomic_t write_ctr; + unsigned int __percpu *refcount; + int state; + struct rcu_sync_struct rss; + wait_queue_head_t writer; struct rw_semaphore rw_sem; - atomic_t slow_read_ctr; - wait_queue_head_t write_waitq; }; -extern void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); -extern void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); +extern void __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); +extern void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); + +static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) +{ + might_sleep(); + + rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_); + + preempt_disable(); + /* + * We are in an RCU-sched read-side critical section, so the writer + * cannot both change sem->state from readers_fast and start + * checking counters while we are here. So if we see !sem->state, + * we know that the writer won't be checking until we past the + * preempt_enable() and that once the synchronize_sched() is done, the + * writer will see anything we did within this RCU-sched read-side + * critical section. + */ + __this_cpu_inc(*sem->refcount); + if (unlikely(!rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss))) + __percpu_down_read(sem); /* Unconditional memory barrier. */ + preempt_enable(); + /* + * The barrier() from preempt_enable() prevents the compiler from + * bleeding the critical section out. + */ +} + +static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) +{ + /* + * The barrier() in preempt_disable() prevents the compiler from + * bleeding the critical section out. + */ + preempt_disable(); + /* + * Same as in percpu_down_read(). + */ + if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss))) + __this_cpu_dec(*sem->refcount); + else + __percpu_up_read(sem); /* Unconditional memory barrier. */ + preempt_enable(); + + rwsem_release(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_); +} extern void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); extern void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); @@ -25,10 +71,10 @@ extern int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct pe const char *, struct lock_class_key *); extern void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *); -#define percpu_init_rwsem(brw) \ +#define percpu_init_rwsem(sem) \ ({ \ static struct lock_class_key rwsem_key; \ - __percpu_init_rwsem(brw, #brw, &rwsem_key); \ + __percpu_init_rwsem(sem, #sem, &rwsem_key); \ }) #endif --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c @@ -8,158 +8,171 @@ #include #include -int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw, +enum { readers_slow, readers_block }; + +int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *rwsem_key) { - brw->fast_read_ctr = alloc_percpu(int); - if (unlikely(!brw->fast_read_ctr)) + sem->refcount = alloc_percpu(unsigned int); + if (unlikely(!sem->refcount)) return -ENOMEM; - /* ->rw_sem represents the whole percpu_rw_semaphore for lockdep */ - __init_rwsem(&brw->rw_sem, name, rwsem_key); - atomic_set(&brw->write_ctr, 0); - atomic_set(&brw->slow_read_ctr, 0); - init_waitqueue_head(&brw->write_waitq); + sem->state = readers_slow; + rcu_sync_init(&sem->rss, RCU_SCHED_SYNC); + init_waitqueue_head(&sem->writer); + __init_rwsem(&sem->rw_sem, name, rwsem_key); + return 0; } -void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw) +void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) { - free_percpu(brw->fast_read_ctr); - brw->fast_read_ctr = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */ + rcu_sync_dtor(&sem->rss); + free_percpu(sem->refcount); + sem->refcount = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */ } -/* - * This is the fast-path for down_read/up_read, it only needs to ensure - * there is no pending writer (atomic_read(write_ctr) == 0) and inc/dec the - * fast per-cpu counter. The writer uses synchronize_sched_expedited() to - * serialize with the preempt-disabled section below. - * - * The nontrivial part is that we should guarantee acquire/release semantics - * in case when - * - * R_W: down_write() comes after up_read(), the writer should see all - * changes done by the reader - * or - * W_R: down_read() comes after up_write(), the reader should see all - * changes done by the writer - * - * If this helper fails the callers rely on the normal rw_semaphore and - * atomic_dec_and_test(), so in this case we have the necessary barriers. - * - * But if it succeeds we do not have any barriers, atomic_read(write_ctr) or - * __this_cpu_add() below can be reordered with any LOAD/STORE done by the - * reader inside the critical section. See the comments in down_write and - * up_write below. - */ -static bool update_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw, unsigned int val) +void __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) { - bool success = false; + /* + * Due to having preemption disabled the decrement happens on + * the same CPU as the increment, avoiding the + * increment-on-one-CPU-and-decrement-on-another problem. + * + * And yes, if the reader misses the writer's assignment of + * readers_block to sem->state, then the writer is + * guaranteed to see the reader's increment. Conversely, any + * readers that increment their sem->refcount after the + * writer looks are guaranteed to see the readers_block value, + * which in turn means that they are guaranteed to immediately + * decrement their sem->refcount, so that it doesn't matter + * that the writer missed them. + */ + + smp_mb(); /* A matches D */ + + /* + * If !readers_block the critical section starts here, matched by the + * release in percpu_up_write(). + */ + if (likely(smp_load_acquire(&sem->state) != readers_block)) + return; + + /* + * Per the above comment; we still have preemption disabled and + * will thus decrement on the same CPU as we incremented. + */ + __percpu_up_read(sem); + + /* + * We either call schedule() in the wait, or we'll fall through + * and reschedule on the preempt_enable() in percpu_down_read(). + */ + preempt_enable_no_resched(); + + /* + * Avoid lockdep for the down/up_read() we already have them. + */ + __down_read(&sem->rw_sem); + __this_cpu_inc(*sem->refcount); + __up_read(&sem->rw_sem); preempt_disable(); - if (likely(!atomic_read(&brw->write_ctr))) { - __this_cpu_add(*brw->fast_read_ctr, val); - success = true; - } - preempt_enable(); +} + +void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) +{ + smp_mb(); /* B matches C */ + /* + * In other words, if they see our decrement (presumably to aggregate + * zero, as that is the only time it matters) they will also see our + * critical section. + */ + this_cpu_dec(*sem->refcount); - return success; + /* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */ + wake_up(&sem->writer); } + +#define per_cpu_sum(var) \ +({ \ + typeof(var) __sum = 0; \ + int cpu; \ + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) \ + __sum += per_cpu(var, cpu); \ + __sum; \ +}) + /* - * Like the normal down_read() this is not recursive, the writer can - * come after the first percpu_down_read() and create the deadlock. - * - * Note: returns with lock_is_held(brw->rw_sem) == T for lockdep, - * percpu_up_read() does rwsem_release(). This pairs with the usage - * of ->rw_sem in percpu_down/up_write(). + * Return true if the modular sum of the sem->refcount per-CPU variable is + * zero. If this sum is zero, then it is stable due to the fact that if any + * newly arriving readers increment a given counter, they will immediately + * decrement that same counter. */ -void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw) +static bool readers_active_check(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) { - might_sleep(); - if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, +1))) { - rwsem_acquire_read(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_); - return; - } + if (per_cpu_sum(*sem->refcount) != 0) + return false; + + /* + * If we observed the decrement; ensure we see the entire critical + * section. + */ + + smp_mb(); /* C matches B */ - down_read(&brw->rw_sem); - atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr); - /* avoid up_read()->rwsem_release() */ - __up_read(&brw->rw_sem); + return true; } -void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw) +void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) { - rwsem_release(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_); + down_write(&sem->rw_sem); - if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, -1))) - return; + /* Notify readers to take the slow path. */ + rcu_sync_enter(&sem->rss); - /* false-positive is possible but harmless */ - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&brw->slow_read_ctr)) - wake_up_all(&brw->write_waitq); -} + /* + * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the + * longish rcu_sync_enter() above, new readers could still come in. + */ + sem->state = readers_block; -static int clear_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw) -{ - unsigned int sum = 0; - int cpu; + smp_mb(); /* D matches A */ - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { - sum += per_cpu(*brw->fast_read_ctr, cpu); - per_cpu(*brw->fast_read_ctr, cpu) = 0; - } + /* + * If they don't see our writer of readers_block to sem->state, + * then we are guaranteed to see their sem->refcount increment, and + * therefore will wait for them. + */ - return sum; + /* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */ + wait_event(sem->writer, readers_active_check(sem)); } -/* - * A writer increments ->write_ctr to force the readers to switch to the - * slow mode, note the atomic_read() check in update_fast_ctr(). - * - * After that the readers can only inc/dec the slow ->slow_read_ctr counter, - * ->fast_read_ctr is stable. Once the writer moves its sum into the slow - * counter it represents the number of active readers. - * - * Finally the writer takes ->rw_sem for writing and blocks the new readers, - * then waits until the slow counter becomes zero. - */ -void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw) +void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem) { - /* tell update_fast_ctr() there is a pending writer */ - atomic_inc(&brw->write_ctr); /* - * 1. Ensures that write_ctr != 0 is visible to any down_read/up_read - * so that update_fast_ctr() can't succeed. + * Signal the writer is done, no fast path yet. * - * 2. Ensures we see the result of every previous this_cpu_add() in - * update_fast_ctr(). + * One reason that we cannot just immediately flip to readers_fast is + * that new readers might fail to see the results of this writer's + * critical section. * - * 3. Ensures that if any reader has exited its critical section via - * fast-path, it executes a full memory barrier before we return. - * See R_W case in the comment above update_fast_ctr(). + * Therefore we force it through the slow path which guarantees an + * acquire and thereby guarantees the critical section's consistency. */ - synchronize_sched_expedited(); + smp_store_release(&sem->state, readers_slow); - /* exclude other writers, and block the new readers completely */ - down_write(&brw->rw_sem); - - /* nobody can use fast_read_ctr, move its sum into slow_read_ctr */ - atomic_add(clear_fast_ctr(brw), &brw->slow_read_ctr); - - /* wait for all readers to complete their percpu_up_read() */ - wait_event(brw->write_waitq, !atomic_read(&brw->slow_read_ctr)); -} + /* + * Release the write lock, this will allow readers back in the game. + */ + up_write(&sem->rw_sem); -void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw) -{ - /* release the lock, but the readers can't use the fast-path */ - up_write(&brw->rw_sem); /* - * Insert the barrier before the next fast-path in down_read, - * see W_R case in the comment above update_fast_ctr(). + * Once this completes (at least one RCU grace period hence) the reader + * fast path will be available again. Safe to use outside the exclusive + * write lock because its counting. */ - synchronize_sched_expedited(); - /* the last writer unblocks update_fast_ctr() */ - atomic_dec(&brw->write_ctr); + rcu_sync_exit(&sem->rss); } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/