[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45315aa9-f006-c4ca-705f-71d6c2650508@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:27:26 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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 03/22/2019 03:30 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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
I had used the my lock event counting code to count the number of
contended and uncontended trylocks. I tested both bootup and kernel
build. I think I saw less than 1% were contended, the rests were all
uncontended. That is similar to what you got. I thought I had sent the
data out previously, but I couldn't find the email. That was the main
reason why I took Linus' suggestion to optimize it for the uncontended case.
Thanks,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists