Message-ID: <20170504202809.lv222a3oes54ijkj@yury-N73SV>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2017 23:28:09 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To:     pan xinhui <mnipxh@...mail.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>,
        Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...ium.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued
 spinlocks and rw-locks

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 06:59:19PM +0000, pan xinhui wrote:
> 在 2017/5/3 22:51, Yury Norov 写道:> The patch 3 adds implementation for queued-based locking on
> > ARM64, and the option in kernel config to enable it. Patches
> > 1 and 2 fix some mess in header files to apply patch 3 smoothly.
> >
> > Tested on QDF2400 with huge improvements with these patches on
> > the torture tests, by Adam Wallis.
> >
> > Tested on ThunderX, by Andrew Pinski:
> > 120 thread (30 core - 4 thread/core) CN99xx (single socket):
> >
> > benchmark               Units	qspinlocks vs ticket locks
> > sched/messaging		s	73.91%
> > sched/pipe		ops/s	104.18%
> > futex/hash		ops/s	103.87%
> > futex/wake		ms	71.04%
> > futex/wake-parallel	ms	93.88%
> > futex/requeue		ms	96.47%
> > futex/lock-pi		ops/s	118.33%
> >
> > Notice, there's the queued locks implementation for the Power PC introduced
> > by Pan Xinhui. He largely tested it and also found significant performance
> > gain. In arch part it is very similar to this patch though.
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/701137/Hi, Yury
>     Glad to know you will join locking development :)
> I have left IBM. However I still care about the queued-spinlock anyway.
> 
> > RFC: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg575575.htmlI notice you raised one question about the performance degradation in the acquisition of rw-lock for read on qemu.
> This is strange indeed. I once enabled qrwlock on ppc too.
> 
> I paste your test reseults below.  Is this a result of
> qspinlock + qrwlock VS qspinlock + normal rwlock or
> qspinlock + qrwlock VS normal spinlock + normal rwlock?

Initially it was VS normal spinlock + normal rwlock. But now I checked
it vs qspinlock + normal rwlock, and results are the same. I don't think
it's a real use case to have ticket spinlocks and queued rwlocks, or
vice versa.
 
> I am not sure how that should happen.

Either me. If I understand it correctly, qemu is not suitable for measuring
performance, so I don't understand why slowing in qemu is important at all,
if real hardware works better. If it matters, my host CPU is Core i7-2630QM

> I make one RFC patch below(not based on latest kernel), you could apply it to
> check if ther is any performance improvement.
> The idea is that.
> In queued_write_lock_slowpath(), we did not unlock the ->wait_lock.
> Because the writer hold the rwlock, all readers are still waiting anyway.
> And in queued_read_lock_slowpath(), calling rspin_until_writer_unlock() looks
> like introduce a little overhead, say, spinning at the rwlock.
> 
> But in the end, queued_read_lock_slowpath() is too heavy, compared with the
> normal rwlock. such result maybe is somehow reasonable?

I tried this path, but kernel hangs on boot with it, in
queued_write_lock_slowpath().
 
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> index 54a8e65..28ee01d 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> @@ -28,8 +28,9 @@
>   * Writer states & reader shift and bias
>   */
>  #define	_QW_WAITING	1		/* A writer is waiting	   */
> -#define	_QW_LOCKED	0xff		/* A writer holds the lock */
> -#define	_QW_WMASK	0xff		/* Writer mask		   */
> +#define _QW_KICK	0x80		/* need unlock the spinlock*/
> +#define	_QW_LOCKED	0x7f		/* A writer holds the lock */
> +#define	_QW_WMASK	0x7f		/* Writer mask		   */
>  #define	_QR_SHIFT	8		/* Reader count shift	   */
>  #define _QR_BIAS	(1U << _QR_SHIFT)
>  
> @@ -139,7 +140,10 @@ static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
>   */
>  static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
>  {
> -	smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
> +	u32 v = atomic_read(&lock->cnts) & (_QW_WMASK | _QW_KICK);
> +	if (v & _QW_KICK)
> +		arch_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> +	(void)atomic_sub_return_release(v, &lock->cnts);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index fec0823..1f0ea02 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
>  
>  	/* Try to acquire the lock directly if no reader is present */
>  	if (!atomic_read(&lock->cnts) &&
> -	    (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, 0, _QW_LOCKED) == 0))
> +	    (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, 0, _QW_LOCKED|_QW_KICK) == 0))
>  		goto unlock;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -138,12 +138,13 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
>  		cnts = atomic_read(&lock->cnts);
>  		if ((cnts == _QW_WAITING) &&
>  		    (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, _QW_WAITING,
> -					    _QW_LOCKED) == _QW_WAITING))
> +					    _QW_LOCKED|_QW_KICK) == _QW_WAITING))
>  			break;
>  
>  		cpu_relax_lowlatency();

It hangs in this in this loop. It's because lock->cnts may now contain
_QW_WAITING or _QW_WAITING | _QW_KICK. So the if() condition may never
meet in 2nd case. To handle it, I changed it like this:
    for (;;) {
            cnts = atomic_read(&lock->cnts);
            if (((cnts & _QW_WMASK) == _QW_WAITING) &&
                (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, cnts,
                                        _QW_LOCKED|_QW_KICK) == cnts))
                    break;

            cpu_relax();
    }


But after that it hanged in queued_spin_lock_slowpath() at the line
478             smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));

Backtrace is below.

Yury

>  	}
>  unlock:
> -	arch_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> +	return;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(queued_write_lock_slowpath);
> -- 
> 2.4.11

#0  queued_spin_lock_slowpath (lock=0xffff000008cb051c <proc_subdir_lock+4>, val=<optimized out>)
    at kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:478
#1  0xffff0000080ff158 in queued_spin_lock (lock=<optimized out>)
    at ./include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h:104
#2  queued_write_lock_slowpath (lock=0xffff000008cb0518 <proc_subdir_lock>)
    at kernel/locking/qrwlock.c:116
#3  0xffff000008815fc4 in queued_write_lock (lock=<optimized out>)
    at ./include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h:135
#4  __raw_write_lock (lock=<optimized out>) at ./include/linux/rwlock_api_smp.h:211
#5  _raw_write_lock (lock=<optimized out>) at kernel/locking/spinlock.c:295
#6  0xffff00000824c4c0 in proc_register (dir=0xffff000008bff2d0 <proc_root>, 
    dp=0xffff80003d807300) at fs/proc/generic.c:342
#7  0xffff00000824c628 in proc_symlink (name=<optimized out>, 
    parent=0xffff000008b28e40 <proc_root_init+72>, dest=0xffff000008a331a8 "self/net")
    at fs/proc/generic.c:413
#8  0xffff000008b2927c in proc_net_init () at fs/proc/proc_net.c:244
#9  0xffff000008b28e40 in proc_root_init () at fs/proc/root.c:137
#10 0xffff000008b10b10 in start_kernel () at init/main.c:661
#11 0xffff000008b101e0 in __primary_switched () at arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:347

Powered by blists - more mailing lists