[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220429184513.vftv4pj72fxzrpm2@offworld>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:45:13 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Teach contention tracing about optimistic
spinning
Sorry for the late reply.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>Hi Davidlohr,
>
>On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:04 AM Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>>
>> Similar to the mutex counterpart, we can further distinguish the
>> types of contention. Similarly this patch also introduces potentially
>> various _begin() tracepoints with a single respective _end().
>
>Thanks for doing this. I was thinking about it as well.
I really like your work on this. I've always wanted a low overhead
equivalent-ish of lock_stat, which could be used in production and
look forward to see these tracepoints put to good use.
>> @@ -115,7 +116,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT(contention_begin,
>> { LCB_F_WRITE, "WRITE" },
>> { LCB_F_RT, "RT" },
>> { LCB_F_PERCPU, "PERCPU" },
>> - { LCB_F_MUTEX, "MUTEX" }
>> + { LCB_F_MUTEX, "MUTEX" },
>> + { LCB_F_RWSEM, "RWSEM" }
>> ))
>> );
>
>Well I'm ok with this but it'd be better if we can do this
>without adding a new flag. Originally a mutex can be
>identified with 0, and a rwsem with either of READ or WRITE.
>
>The MUTEX flag was added to note optimistic spins
>on mutex and now we need something similar for
>rwsem. Then can we change the MUTEX to OPTIMISTIC
>if it's not too late?
Ok. Perhaps name it OSQ? I had thought of that but at the
time was also thinking about potentially the rtmutex and
rt spinlock spinning too - which don't use osq so the name
would fit in that sense.
While not in Linus' tree, I wouldn't think it's too late.
>> for (;;) {
>> if (rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, &waiter)) {
>> @@ -1161,18 +1167,25 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
>> if (waiter.handoff_set) {
>> enum owner_state owner_state;
>>
>> + trace_contention_begin(sem, LCB_F_RWSEM |
>> + LCB_F_WRITE | LCB_F_SPIN);
>> preempt_disable();
>> owner_state = rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem);
>> preempt_enable();
>>
>> - if (owner_state == OWNER_NULL)
>> - goto trylock_again;
>> + if (owner_state == OWNER_NULL) {
>> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> + if (rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, &waiter))
>> + break;
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> + trace_contention_begin(sem, LCB_F_RWSEM | LCB_F_WRITE);
>
>I'm afraid that it'd generate many contention_begin
>trace events for a single lock acquisition.
You are right, lets just trace the "normal" optimistic spinning
at the start of the write slowpath.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists