[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190322193010.azb7rmmmaclhal35@linux-r8p5>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:30:10 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org, uclinux-h8-devel@...ts.sourceforge.jp,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, nios2-dev@...ts.rocketboards.org,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] locking/rwsem: Remove arch specific rwsem files
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>Some of them _might_ be performance-critical. There's the one on
>mmap_sem in the fault handling path, for example. And yes, I'd expect
>the normal case to very much be "no other readers or writers" for that
>one.
Yeah, the mmap_sem case in the fault path is really expecting an unlocked
state. To the point that four archs have added branch predictions, ie:
92181f190b6 (x86: optimise x86's do_page_fault (C entry point for the page fault path))
b15021d994f (powerpc/mm: Add a bunch of (un)likely annotations to do_page_fault)
And using PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES shows pretty clearly:
(without resetting the counters)
correct incorrect % Function File Line
------- --------- - -------- ---- ----
4603685 34 0 do_user_addr_fault fault.c 1416 (bootup)
382327745 449 0 do_user_addr_fault fault.c 1416 (kernel build)
399446159 461 0 do_user_addr_fault fault.c 1416 (redis benchmark)
It would probably wouldn't harm doing the unlikely() for all archs, or
alternatively, add likely() to the atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire in
patch 3 and do it implicitly but maybe that would be less flexible(?)
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists