Message-ID: <20160809095112.GG30192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:51:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
	Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Optimize readers and reduce global
 impact


Currently the percpu-rwsem switches to (global) atomic ops while a
writer is waiting; which could be quite a while and slows down
releasing the readers.

This patch cures this 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.

This also enables using the percpu-rwsem with rcu_sync disabled in order
to bias the implementation differently, reducing the writer latency by
adding some cost to readers.

Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h  |   84 +++++++++++++--
 kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c |  228 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 2 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)

--- a/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
@@ -10,30 +10,96 @@
 
 struct percpu_rw_semaphore {
 	struct rcu_sync		rss;
-	unsigned int __percpu	*fast_read_ctr;
+	unsigned int __percpu	*read_count;
 	struct rw_semaphore	rw_sem;
-	atomic_t		slow_read_ctr;
-	wait_queue_head_t	write_waitq;
+	wait_queue_head_t	writer;
+	int			readers_block;
 };
 
-extern void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
-extern int  percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
-extern void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *);
+extern int __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *, int);
+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're past the preempt_enable()
+	 * and that one the synchronize_sched() is done, the writer will see
+	 * anything we did within this RCU-sched read-size critical section.
+	 */
+	__this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+	if (unlikely(!rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
+		__percpu_down_read(sem, false); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
+	preempt_enable();
+	/*
+	 * The barrier() from preempt_enable() prevents the compiler from
+	 * bleeding the critical section out.
+	 */
+}
+
+static inline int percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
+{
+	int ret = 1;
+
+	preempt_disable();
+	/*
+	 * Same as in percpu_down_read().
+	 */
+	__this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+	if (unlikely(!rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
+		ret = __percpu_down_read(sem, true); /* Unconditional memory barrier */
+	preempt_enable();
+	/*
+	 * The barrier() from preempt_enable() prevents the compiler from
+	 * bleeding the critical section out.
+	 */
+
+	if (ret)
+		rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+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->read_count);
+	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 *);
 
 extern int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *,
 				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);		\
 })
 
-
 #define percpu_rwsem_is_held(sem) lockdep_is_held(&(sem)->rw_sem)
 
 static inline void percpu_rwsem_release(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
--- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
@@ -8,152 +8,186 @@
 #include <linux/sched.h>
 #include <linux/errno.h>
 
-int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw,
+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->read_count = alloc_percpu(int);
+	if (unlikely(!sem->read_count))
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	/* ->rw_sem represents the whole percpu_rw_semaphore for lockdep */
-	__init_rwsem(&brw->rw_sem, name, rwsem_key);
-	rcu_sync_init(&brw->rss, RCU_SCHED_SYNC);
-	atomic_set(&brw->slow_read_ctr, 0);
-	init_waitqueue_head(&brw->write_waitq);
+	rcu_sync_init(&sem->rss, RCU_SCHED_SYNC);
+	__init_rwsem(&sem->rw_sem, name, rwsem_key);
+	init_waitqueue_head(&sem->writer);
+	sem->readers_block = 0;
 	return 0;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_init_rwsem);
 
-void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void percpu_free_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
 	/*
 	 * XXX: temporary kludge. The error path in alloc_super()
 	 * assumes that percpu_free_rwsem() is safe after kzalloc().
 	 */
-	if (!brw->fast_read_ctr)
+	if (!sem->read_count)
 		return;
 
-	rcu_sync_dtor(&brw->rss);
-	free_percpu(brw->fast_read_ctr);
-	brw->fast_read_ctr = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */
+	rcu_sync_dtor(&sem->rss);
+	free_percpu(sem->read_count);
+	sem->read_count = NULL; /* catch use after free bugs */
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_free_rwsem);
 
-/*
- * This is the fast-path for down_read/up_read. If it succeeds we rely
- * on the barriers provided by rcu_sync_enter/exit; see the comments in
- * percpu_down_write() and percpu_up_write().
- *
- * 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.
- */
-static bool update_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw, unsigned int val)
+int __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, int try)
 {
-	bool success;
+	/*
+	 * 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.
+	 *
+	 * If the reader misses the writer's assignment of readers_block, then
+	 * the writer is guaranteed to see the reader's increment.
+	 *
+	 * Conversely, any readers that increment their sem->read_count 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->read_count, so that it doesn't matter that the
+	 * writer missed them.
+	 */
 
-	preempt_disable();
-	success = rcu_sync_is_idle(&brw->rss);
-	if (likely(success))
-		__this_cpu_add(*brw->fast_read_ctr, val);
-	preempt_enable();
+	smp_mb(); /* A matches D */
 
-	return success;
-}
+	/*
+	 * If !readers_block the critical section starts here, matched by the
+	 * release in percpu_up_write().
+	 */
+	if (likely(!smp_load_acquire(&sem->readers_block)))
+		return 1;
 
-/*
- * 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().
- */
-void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
-{
-	might_sleep();
-	rwsem_acquire_read(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+	/*
+	 * Per the above comment; we still have preemption disabled and
+	 * will thus decrement on the same CPU as we incremented.
+	 */
+	__percpu_up_read(sem);
 
-	if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, +1)))
-		return;
+	if (try)
+		return 0;
 
-	/* Avoid rwsem_acquire_read() and rwsem_release() */
-	__down_read(&brw->rw_sem);
-	atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
-	__up_read(&brw->rw_sem);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_down_read);
-
-int percpu_down_read_trylock(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
-{
-	if (unlikely(!update_fast_ctr(brw, +1))) {
-		if (!__down_read_trylock(&brw->rw_sem))
-			return 0;
-		atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
-		__up_read(&brw->rw_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();
 
-	rwsem_acquire_read(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+	/*
+	 * Avoid lockdep for the down/up_read() we already have them.
+	 */
+	__down_read(&sem->rw_sem);
+	this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
+	__up_read(&sem->rw_sem);
+
+	preempt_disable();
 	return 1;
 }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_down_read);
 
-void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	rwsem_release(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
-
-	if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, -1)))
-		return;
+	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->read_count);
 
-	/* false-positive is possible but harmless */
-	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&brw->slow_read_ctr))
-		wake_up_all(&brw->write_waitq);
+	/* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
+	wake_up(&sem->writer);
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_up_read);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_up_read);
 
-static int clear_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+#define per_cpu_sum(var)						\
+({									\
+	typeof(var) __sum = 0;						\
+	int cpu;							\
+	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(__sum);				\
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)					\
+		__sum += per_cpu(var, cpu);				\
+	__sum;								\
+})
+
+/*
+ * Return true if the modular sum of the sem->read_count 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.
+ */
+static bool readers_active_check(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	unsigned int sum = 0;
-	int cpu;
+	if (per_cpu_sum(*sem->read_count) != 0)
+		return false;
 
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		sum += per_cpu(*brw->fast_read_ctr, cpu);
-		per_cpu(*brw->fast_read_ctr, cpu) = 0;
-	}
+	/*
+	 * If we observed the decrement; ensure we see the entire critical
+	 * section.
+	 */
+
+	smp_mb(); /* C matches B */
 
-	return sum;
+	return true;
 }
 
-void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
+	/* Notify readers to take the slow path. */
+	rcu_sync_enter(&sem->rss);
+
+	down_write(&sem->rw_sem);
+
 	/*
-	 * Make rcu_sync_is_idle() == F and thus disable the fast-path in
-	 * percpu_down_read() and percpu_up_read(), and wait for gp pass.
-	 *
-	 * The latter synchronises us with the preceding readers which used
-	 * the fast-past, so we can not miss the result of __this_cpu_add()
-	 * or anything else inside their criticial sections.
+	 * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the
+	 * longish rcu_sync_enter() above, new readers could still come in.
 	 */
-	rcu_sync_enter(&brw->rss);
+	WRITE_ONCE(sem->readers_block, 1);
 
-	/* exclude other writers, and block the new readers completely */
-	down_write(&brw->rw_sem);
+	smp_mb(); /* D matches A */
 
-	/* nobody can use fast_read_ctr, move its sum into slow_read_ctr */
-	atomic_add(clear_fast_ctr(brw), &brw->slow_read_ctr);
+	/*
+	 * If they don't see our writer of readers_block, then we are
+	 * guaranteed to see their sem->read_count increment, and therefore
+	 * will wait for them.
+	 */
 
-	/* wait for all readers to complete their percpu_up_read() */
-	wait_event(brw->write_waitq, !atomic_read(&brw->slow_read_ctr));
+	/* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
+	wait_event(sem->writer, readers_active_check(sem));
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_down_write);
 
-void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
+void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	/* release the lock, but the readers can't use the fast-path */
-	up_write(&brw->rw_sem);
 	/*
-	 * Enable the fast-path in percpu_down_read() and percpu_up_read()
-	 * but only after another gp pass; this adds the necessary barrier
-	 * to ensure the reader can't miss the changes done by us.
+	 * Signal the writer is done, no fast path yet.
+	 *
+	 * 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.
+	 *
+	 * Therefore we force it through the slow path which guarantees an
+	 * acquire and thereby guarantees the critical section's consistency.
+	 */
+	smp_store_release(&sem->readers_block, 0);
+
+	/*
+	 * Release the write lock, this will allow readers back in the game.
+	 */
+	up_write(&sem->rw_sem);
+
+	/*
+	 * Once this completes (at least one RCU-sched grace period hence) the
+	 * reader fast path will be available again. Safe to use outside the
+	 * exclusive write lock because its counting.
 	 */
-	rcu_sync_exit(&brw->rss);
+	rcu_sync_exit(&sem->rss);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_up_write);

Powered by blists - more mailing lists