2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/* rwsem.c: R/W semaphores: contention handling functions
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Written by David Howells (dhowells@redhat.com).
|
|
|
|
* Derived from arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c
|
2013-02-05 13:11:55 +00:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Writer lock-stealing by Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
* and Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Optimistic spinning by Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
|
|
|
|
* and Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>. Based on mutexes.
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/rwsem.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/init.h>
|
2011-11-17 02:29:17 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/export.h>
|
2017-02-02 18:15:33 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/signal.h>
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
|
2017-02-01 15:36:40 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/wake_q.h>
|
2017-02-08 17:51:35 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/debug.h>
|
2015-01-30 09:14:25 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/osq_lock.h>
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-30 09:14:25 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "rwsem.h"
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-05-02 19:53:57 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Guide to the rw_semaphore's count field for common values.
|
|
|
|
* (32-bit case illustrated, similar for 64-bit)
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* 0x0000000X (1) X readers active or attempting lock, no writer waiting
|
|
|
|
* X = #active_readers + #readers attempting to lock
|
|
|
|
* (X*ACTIVE_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* 0x00000000 rwsem is unlocked, and no one is waiting for the lock or
|
|
|
|
* attempting to read lock or write lock.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* 0xffff000X (1) X readers active or attempting lock, with waiters for lock
|
|
|
|
* X = #active readers + # readers attempting lock
|
|
|
|
* (X*ACTIVE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
* (2) 1 writer attempting lock, no waiters for lock
|
|
|
|
* X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
|
|
|
|
* ((X-1)*ACTIVE_BIAS + ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
* (3) 1 writer active, no waiters for lock
|
|
|
|
* X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
|
|
|
|
* ((X-1)*ACTIVE_BIAS + ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* 0xffff0001 (1) 1 reader active or attempting lock, waiters for lock
|
|
|
|
* (WAITING_BIAS + ACTIVE_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
* (2) 1 writer active or attempting lock, no waiters for lock
|
|
|
|
* (ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* 0xffff0000 (1) There are writers or readers queued but none active
|
|
|
|
* or in the process of attempting lock.
|
|
|
|
* (WAITING_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
* Note: writer can attempt to steal lock for this count by adding
|
|
|
|
* ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS in cmpxchg and checking the old count
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* 0xfffe0001 (1) 1 writer active, or attempting lock. Waiters on queue.
|
|
|
|
* (ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Note: Readers attempt to lock by adding ACTIVE_BIAS in down_read and checking
|
|
|
|
* the count becomes more than 0 for successful lock acquisition,
|
|
|
|
* i.e. the case where there are only readers or nobody has lock.
|
|
|
|
* (1st and 2nd case above).
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Writers attempt to lock by adding ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS in down_write and
|
|
|
|
* checking the count becomes ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS for successful lock
|
|
|
|
* acquisition (i.e. nobody else has lock or attempts lock). If
|
|
|
|
* unsuccessful, in rwsem_down_write_failed, we'll check to see if there
|
|
|
|
* are only waiters but none active (5th case above), and attempt to
|
|
|
|
* steal the lock.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2006-07-03 07:24:53 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Initialize an rwsem:
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
void __init_rwsem(struct rw_semaphore *sem, const char *name,
|
|
|
|
struct lock_class_key *key)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Make sure we are not reinitializing a held semaphore:
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)sem, sizeof(*sem));
|
2006-10-11 05:45:14 +00:00
|
|
|
lockdep_init_map(&sem->dep_map, name, key, 0);
|
2006-07-03 07:24:53 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
atomic_long_set(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE);
|
2010-02-24 08:54:54 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_init(&sem->wait_lock);
|
2006-07-03 07:24:53 +00:00
|
|
|
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sem->wait_list);
|
2014-07-11 21:00:06 +00:00
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
sem->owner = NULL;
|
2014-07-14 17:27:50 +00:00
|
|
|
osq_lock_init(&sem->osq);
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
2006-07-03 07:24:53 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__init_rwsem);
|
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:49 +00:00
|
|
|
enum rwsem_waiter_type {
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE,
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rwsem_waiter {
|
|
|
|
struct list_head list;
|
|
|
|
struct task_struct *task;
|
2013-05-07 13:45:49 +00:00
|
|
|
enum rwsem_waiter_type type;
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
enum rwsem_wake_type {
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, /* Wake whatever's at head of wait list */
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_WAKE_READERS, /* Wake readers only */
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED /* Waker thread holds the read lock */
|
|
|
|
};
|
2010-08-10 00:21:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* handle the lock release when processes blocked on it that can now run
|
|
|
|
* - if we come here from up_xxxx(), then:
|
|
|
|
* - the 'active part' of count (&0x0000ffff) reached 0 (but may have changed)
|
|
|
|
* - the 'waiting part' of count (&0xffff0000) is -ve (and will still be so)
|
2010-08-10 00:21:15 +00:00
|
|
|
* - there must be someone on the queue
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
* - the wait_lock must be held by the caller
|
|
|
|
* - tasks are marked for wakeup, the caller must later invoke wake_up_q()
|
|
|
|
* to actually wakeup the blocked task(s) and drop the reference count,
|
|
|
|
* preferably when the wait_lock is released
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
* - woken process blocks are discarded from the list after having task zeroed
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
* - writers are only marked woken if downgrading is false
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
|
|
|
|
enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type,
|
|
|
|
struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter, *tmp;
|
|
|
|
long oldcount, woken = 0, adjustment = 0;
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Take a peek at the queue head waiter such that we can determine
|
|
|
|
* the wakeup(s) to perform.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:58 +00:00
|
|
|
if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY) {
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
|
|
|
|
* Until the task is actually later awoken later by
|
|
|
|
* the caller, other writers are able to steal it.
|
|
|
|
* Readers, on the other hand, will block as they
|
|
|
|
* will notice the queued writer.
|
2013-05-07 13:45:58 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
2013-05-07 13:45:58 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Writers might steal the lock before we grant it to the next reader.
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
* We prefer to do the first reader grant before counting readers
|
|
|
|
* so we can bail out early if a writer stole the lock.
|
2010-08-10 00:21:17 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
if (wake_type != RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED) {
|
|
|
|
adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
|
|
|
|
try_reader_grant:
|
2016-05-18 10:42:21 +00:00
|
|
|
oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
if (unlikely(oldcount < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
|
2016-05-18 01:26:22 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* If the count is still less than RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS
|
|
|
|
* after removing the adjustment, it is assumed that
|
|
|
|
* a writer has stolen the lock. We have to undo our
|
|
|
|
* reader grant.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
if (atomic_long_add_return(-adjustment, &sem->count) <
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Last active locker left. Retry waking readers. */
|
|
|
|
goto try_reader_grant;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* It is not really necessary to set it to reader-owned here,
|
|
|
|
* but it gives the spinners an early indication that the
|
|
|
|
* readers now have the lock.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
|
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath
When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many read
locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers. But in
order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first count the
readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while if there are
many readers, and we want to be protected against a writer stealing the
lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant the first reader lock
before counting how many more readers are queued.
We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.
RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to be
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free as
nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't make
sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now use
RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.
Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was
active, it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new
readers could be woken without checking first that the rwsem was
available. We can't do that anymore since the existing readers might
release their read locks, and a writer could steal the lock before we
wake up additional readers. So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
value to indicate we only want to wake readers, but we don't currently
hold any read lock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-05-07 13:45:59 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
* of the queue. We know that woken will be at least 1 as we accounted
|
|
|
|
* for above. Note we increment the 'active part' of the count by the
|
|
|
|
* number of readers before waking any processes up.
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
list_for_each_entry_safe(waiter, tmp, &sem->wait_list, list) {
|
|
|
|
struct task_struct *tsk;
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
woken++;
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
tsk = waiter->task;
|
locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task
Readers that are awoken will expect a nil ->task indicating
that a wakeup has occurred. Because of the way readers are
implemented, there's a small chance that the waiter will never
block in the slowpath (rwsem_down_read_failed), and therefore
requires some form of reference counting to avoid the following
scenario:
rwsem_down_read_failed() rwsem_wake()
get_task_struct();
spin_lock_irq(&wait_lock);
list_add_tail(&waiter.list)
spin_unlock_irq(&wait_lock);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&wait_lock)
__rwsem_do_wake()
while (1) {
set_task_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
waiter->task = NULL
if (!waiter.task) // true
break;
schedule() // never reached
__set_task_state(TASK_RUNNING);
do_exit();
wake_up_process(tsk); // boom
... and therefore race with do_exit() when the caller returns.
There is also a mismatch between the smp_mb() and its documentation,
in that the serialization is done between reading the task and the
nil store. Furthermore, in addition to having the overlapping of
loads and stores to waiter->task guaranteed to be ordered within
that CPU, both wake_up_process() originally and now wake_q_add()
already imply barriers upon successful calls, which serves the
comment.
Now, as an alternative to perhaps inverting the checks in the blocker
side (which has its own penalty in that schedule is unavoidable),
with lockless wakeups this situation is naturally addressed and we
can just use the refcount held by wake_q_add(), instead doing so
explicitly. Of course, we must guarantee that the nil store is done
as the _last_ operation in that the task must already be marked for
deletion to not fall into the race above. Spurious wakeups are also
handled transparently in that the task's reference is only removed
when wake_up_q() is actually called _after_ the nil store.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-3-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:27 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wake_q_add(wake_q, tsk);
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
list_del(&waiter->list);
|
2015-01-30 09:14:24 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task
Readers that are awoken will expect a nil ->task indicating
that a wakeup has occurred. Because of the way readers are
implemented, there's a small chance that the waiter will never
block in the slowpath (rwsem_down_read_failed), and therefore
requires some form of reference counting to avoid the following
scenario:
rwsem_down_read_failed() rwsem_wake()
get_task_struct();
spin_lock_irq(&wait_lock);
list_add_tail(&waiter.list)
spin_unlock_irq(&wait_lock);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&wait_lock)
__rwsem_do_wake()
while (1) {
set_task_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
waiter->task = NULL
if (!waiter.task) // true
break;
schedule() // never reached
__set_task_state(TASK_RUNNING);
do_exit();
wake_up_process(tsk); // boom
... and therefore race with do_exit() when the caller returns.
There is also a mismatch between the smp_mb() and its documentation,
in that the serialization is done between reading the task and the
nil store. Furthermore, in addition to having the overlapping of
loads and stores to waiter->task guaranteed to be ordered within
that CPU, both wake_up_process() originally and now wake_q_add()
already imply barriers upon successful calls, which serves the
comment.
Now, as an alternative to perhaps inverting the checks in the blocker
side (which has its own penalty in that schedule is unavoidable),
with lockless wakeups this situation is naturally addressed and we
can just use the refcount held by wake_q_add(), instead doing so
explicitly. Of course, we must guarantee that the nil store is done
as the _last_ operation in that the task must already be marked for
deletion to not fall into the race above. Spurious wakeups are also
handled transparently in that the task's reference is only removed
when wake_up_q() is actually called _after_ the nil store.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-3-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:27 +00:00
|
|
|
* Ensure that the last operation is setting the reader
|
|
|
|
* waiter to nil such that rwsem_down_read_failed() cannot
|
|
|
|
* race with do_exit() by always holding a reference count
|
|
|
|
* to the task to wakeup.
|
2015-01-30 09:14:24 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task
Readers that are awoken will expect a nil ->task indicating
that a wakeup has occurred. Because of the way readers are
implemented, there's a small chance that the waiter will never
block in the slowpath (rwsem_down_read_failed), and therefore
requires some form of reference counting to avoid the following
scenario:
rwsem_down_read_failed() rwsem_wake()
get_task_struct();
spin_lock_irq(&wait_lock);
list_add_tail(&waiter.list)
spin_unlock_irq(&wait_lock);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&wait_lock)
__rwsem_do_wake()
while (1) {
set_task_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
waiter->task = NULL
if (!waiter.task) // true
break;
schedule() // never reached
__set_task_state(TASK_RUNNING);
do_exit();
wake_up_process(tsk); // boom
... and therefore race with do_exit() when the caller returns.
There is also a mismatch between the smp_mb() and its documentation,
in that the serialization is done between reading the task and the
nil store. Furthermore, in addition to having the overlapping of
loads and stores to waiter->task guaranteed to be ordered within
that CPU, both wake_up_process() originally and now wake_q_add()
already imply barriers upon successful calls, which serves the
comment.
Now, as an alternative to perhaps inverting the checks in the blocker
side (which has its own penalty in that schedule is unavoidable),
with lockless wakeups this situation is naturally addressed and we
can just use the refcount held by wake_q_add(), instead doing so
explicitly. Of course, we must guarantee that the nil store is done
as the _last_ operation in that the task must already be marked for
deletion to not fall into the race above. Spurious wakeups are also
handled transparently in that the task's reference is only removed
when wake_up_q() is actually called _after_ the nil store.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-3-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:27 +00:00
|
|
|
smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
adjustment = woken * RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS - adjustment;
|
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
|
|
|
|
/* hit end of list above */
|
|
|
|
adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (adjustment)
|
|
|
|
atomic_long_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
|
2013-02-05 13:11:55 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
* Wait for the read lock to be granted
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
locking/rwsem-xadd: Add killable versions of rwsem_down_read_failed()
Rename rwsem_down_read_failed() in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
and teach it to abort waiting in case of pending signals and killable
state argument passed.
Note, that we shouldn't wake anybody up in EINTR path, as:
We check for (waiter.task) under spinlock before we go to out_nolock
path. Current task wasn't able to be woken up, so there are
a writer, owning the sem, or a writer, which is the first waiter.
In the both cases we shouldn't wake anybody. If there is a writer,
owning the sem, and we were the only waiter, remove RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
as there are no waiters anymore.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: avagin@virtuozzo.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com
Cc: gorcunov@virtuozzo.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Cc: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru
Cc: mattst88@gmail.com
Cc: rth@twiddle.net
Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/149789534632.9059.2901382369609922565.stgit@localhost.localdomain
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-19 18:02:26 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline struct rw_semaphore __sched *
|
|
|
|
__rwsem_down_read_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2013-05-07 13:46:02 +00:00
|
|
|
long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
|
2010-08-10 00:21:20 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
|
2016-11-17 16:46:38 +00:00
|
|
|
DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-01-03 21:43:13 +00:00
|
|
|
waiter.task = current;
|
2013-05-07 13:45:52 +00:00
|
|
|
waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:50 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
2010-08-10 00:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
|
|
|
|
adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
|
2010-08-10 00:21:20 +00:00
|
|
|
list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-10 00:21:17 +00:00
|
|
|
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
count = atomic_long_add_return(adjustment, &sem->count);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-05 08:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es).
|
2013-05-07 13:46:00 +00:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* If there are no writers and we are first in the queue,
|
|
|
|
* wake our own waiter to join the existing active readers !
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS ||
|
|
|
|
(count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
|
|
|
|
adjustment != -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS))
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
__rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-02-24 08:54:54 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* wait to be given the lock */
|
2013-05-07 13:45:50 +00:00
|
|
|
while (true) {
|
locking/rwsem-xadd: Add killable versions of rwsem_down_read_failed()
Rename rwsem_down_read_failed() in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
and teach it to abort waiting in case of pending signals and killable
state argument passed.
Note, that we shouldn't wake anybody up in EINTR path, as:
We check for (waiter.task) under spinlock before we go to out_nolock
path. Current task wasn't able to be woken up, so there are
a writer, owning the sem, or a writer, which is the first waiter.
In the both cases we shouldn't wake anybody. If there is a writer,
owning the sem, and we were the only waiter, remove RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
as there are no waiters anymore.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: avagin@virtuozzo.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com
Cc: gorcunov@virtuozzo.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Cc: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru
Cc: mattst88@gmail.com
Cc: rth@twiddle.net
Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/149789534632.9059.2901382369609922565.stgit@localhost.localdomain
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-19 18:02:26 +00:00
|
|
|
set_current_state(state);
|
2010-08-10 00:21:20 +00:00
|
|
|
if (!waiter.task)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
break;
|
locking/rwsem-xadd: Add killable versions of rwsem_down_read_failed()
Rename rwsem_down_read_failed() in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
and teach it to abort waiting in case of pending signals and killable
state argument passed.
Note, that we shouldn't wake anybody up in EINTR path, as:
We check for (waiter.task) under spinlock before we go to out_nolock
path. Current task wasn't able to be woken up, so there are
a writer, owning the sem, or a writer, which is the first waiter.
In the both cases we shouldn't wake anybody. If there is a writer,
owning the sem, and we were the only waiter, remove RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
as there are no waiters anymore.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: avagin@virtuozzo.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com
Cc: gorcunov@virtuozzo.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Cc: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru
Cc: mattst88@gmail.com
Cc: rth@twiddle.net
Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/149789534632.9059.2901382369609922565.stgit@localhost.localdomain
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-19 18:02:26 +00:00
|
|
|
if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
|
|
|
if (waiter.task)
|
|
|
|
goto out_nolock;
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
schedule();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
sched/core: Remove set_task_state()
This is a nasty interface and setting the state of a foreign task must
not be done. As of the following commit:
be628be0956 ("bcache: Make gc wakeup sane, remove set_task_state()")
... everyone in the kernel calls set_task_state() with current, allowing
the helper to be removed.
However, as the comment indicates, it is still around for those archs
where computing current is more expensive than using a pointer, at least
in theory. An important arch that is affected is arm64, however this has
been addressed now [1] and performance is up to par making no difference
with either calls.
Of all the callers, if any, it's the locking bits that would care most
about this -- ie: we end up passing a tsk pointer to a lot of the lock
slowpath, and setting ->state on that. The following numbers are based
on two tests: a custom ad-hoc microbenchmark that just measures
latencies (for ~65 million calls) between get_task_state() vs
get_current_state().
Secondly for a higher overview, an unlink microbenchmark was used,
which pounds on a single file with open, close,unlink combos with
increasing thread counts (up to 4x ncpus). While the workload is quite
unrealistic, it does contend a lot on the inode mutex or now rwsem.
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1483468021-8237-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com
== 1. x86-64 ==
Avg runtime set_task_state(): 601 msecs
Avg runtime set_current_state(): 552 msecs
vanilla dirty
Hmean unlink1-processes-2 36089.26 ( 0.00%) 38977.33 ( 8.00%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-5 28555.01 ( 0.00%) 29832.55 ( 4.28%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-8 37323.75 ( 0.00%) 44974.57 ( 20.50%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-12 43571.88 ( 0.00%) 44283.01 ( 1.63%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-21 34431.52 ( 0.00%) 38284.45 ( 11.19%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-30 34813.26 ( 0.00%) 37975.17 ( 9.08%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-48 37048.90 ( 0.00%) 39862.78 ( 7.59%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-79 35630.01 ( 0.00%) 36855.30 ( 3.44%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-110 36115.85 ( 0.00%) 39843.91 ( 10.32%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-141 32546.96 ( 0.00%) 35418.52 ( 8.82%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-172 34674.79 ( 0.00%) 36899.21 ( 6.42%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-203 37303.11 ( 0.00%) 36393.04 ( -2.44%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-224 35712.13 ( 0.00%) 36685.96 ( 2.73%)
== 2. ppc64le ==
Avg runtime set_task_state(): 938 msecs
Avg runtime set_current_state: 940 msecs
vanilla dirty
Hmean unlink1-processes-2 19269.19 ( 0.00%) 30704.50 ( 59.35%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-5 20106.15 ( 0.00%) 21804.15 ( 8.45%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-8 17496.97 ( 0.00%) 17243.28 ( -1.45%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-12 14224.15 ( 0.00%) 17240.21 ( 21.20%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-21 14155.66 ( 0.00%) 15681.23 ( 10.78%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-30 14450.70 ( 0.00%) 15995.83 ( 10.69%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-48 16945.57 ( 0.00%) 16370.42 ( -3.39%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-79 15788.39 ( 0.00%) 14639.27 ( -7.28%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-110 14268.48 ( 0.00%) 14377.40 ( 0.76%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-141 14023.65 ( 0.00%) 16271.69 ( 16.03%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-172 13417.62 ( 0.00%) 16067.55 ( 19.75%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-203 15293.08 ( 0.00%) 15440.40 ( 0.96%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-234 13719.32 ( 0.00%) 16190.74 ( 18.01%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-265 16400.97 ( 0.00%) 16115.22 ( -1.74%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-296 14388.60 ( 0.00%) 16216.13 ( 12.70%)
Hmean unlink1-processes-320 15771.85 ( 0.00%) 15905.96 ( 0.85%)
x86-64 (known to be fast for get_current()/this_cpu_read_stable() caching)
and ppc64 (with paca) show similar improvements in the unlink microbenches.
The small delta for ppc64 (2ms), does not represent the gains on the unlink
runs. In the case of x86, there was a decent amount of variation in the
latency runs, but always within a 20 to 50ms increase), ppc was more constant.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1483479794-14013-5-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-01-03 21:43:14 +00:00
|
|
|
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
return sem;
|
locking/rwsem-xadd: Add killable versions of rwsem_down_read_failed()
Rename rwsem_down_read_failed() in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
and teach it to abort waiting in case of pending signals and killable
state argument passed.
Note, that we shouldn't wake anybody up in EINTR path, as:
We check for (waiter.task) under spinlock before we go to out_nolock
path. Current task wasn't able to be woken up, so there are
a writer, owning the sem, or a writer, which is the first waiter.
In the both cases we shouldn't wake anybody. If there is a writer,
owning the sem, and we were the only waiter, remove RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
as there are no waiters anymore.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: avagin@virtuozzo.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com
Cc: gorcunov@virtuozzo.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Cc: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru
Cc: mattst88@gmail.com
Cc: rth@twiddle.net
Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/149789534632.9059.2901382369609922565.stgit@localhost.localdomain
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-19 18:02:26 +00:00
|
|
|
out_nolock:
|
|
|
|
list_del(&waiter.list);
|
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
|
|
|
|
atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, &sem->count);
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
|
|
|
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
|
|
|
|
return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__visible struct rw_semaphore * __sched
|
|
|
|
rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return __rwsem_down_read_failed_common(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2014-09-12 05:34:25 +00:00
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_read_failed);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
locking/rwsem-xadd: Add killable versions of rwsem_down_read_failed()
Rename rwsem_down_read_failed() in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
and teach it to abort waiting in case of pending signals and killable
state argument passed.
Note, that we shouldn't wake anybody up in EINTR path, as:
We check for (waiter.task) under spinlock before we go to out_nolock
path. Current task wasn't able to be woken up, so there are
a writer, owning the sem, or a writer, which is the first waiter.
In the both cases we shouldn't wake anybody. If there is a writer,
owning the sem, and we were the only waiter, remove RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
as there are no waiters anymore.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: avagin@virtuozzo.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com
Cc: gorcunov@virtuozzo.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Cc: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru
Cc: mattst88@gmail.com
Cc: rth@twiddle.net
Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/149789534632.9059.2901382369609922565.stgit@localhost.localdomain
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-19 18:02:26 +00:00
|
|
|
__visible struct rw_semaphore * __sched
|
|
|
|
rwsem_down_read_failed_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return __rwsem_down_read_failed_common(sem, TASK_KILLABLE);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_read_failed_killable);
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-17 00:38:00 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* This function must be called with the sem->wait_lock held to prevent
|
|
|
|
* race conditions between checking the rwsem wait list and setting the
|
|
|
|
* sem->count accordingly.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2014-09-17 00:16:57 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2016-05-17 00:38:00 +00:00
|
|
|
* Avoid trying to acquire write lock if count isn't RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS.
|
2014-09-17 00:16:57 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-05-17 00:38:00 +00:00
|
|
|
if (count != RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Acquire the lock by trying to set it to ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS. If there
|
|
|
|
* are other tasks on the wait list, we need to add on WAITING_BIAS.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
count = list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list) ?
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS :
|
|
|
|
RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
if (atomic_long_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, count)
|
|
|
|
== RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
|
2015-01-30 09:14:25 +00:00
|
|
|
rwsem_set_owner(sem);
|
2014-09-17 00:16:57 +00:00
|
|
|
return true;
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2014-09-17 00:16:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2014-07-11 21:00:06 +00:00
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
* Try to acquire write lock before the writer has been put on wait queue.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
long old, count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (true) {
|
|
|
|
if (!(count == 0 || count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS))
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
old = atomic_long_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, count,
|
2015-09-30 20:03:15 +00:00
|
|
|
count + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
|
2015-01-30 09:14:25 +00:00
|
|
|
if (old == count) {
|
|
|
|
rwsem_set_owner(sem);
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
return true;
|
2015-01-30 09:14:25 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
count = old;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct task_struct *owner;
|
2015-01-30 09:14:27 +00:00
|
|
|
bool ret = true;
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (need_resched())
|
2014-07-05 03:49:32 +00:00
|
|
|
return false;
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rcu_read_lock();
|
2015-02-23 03:31:41 +00:00
|
|
|
owner = READ_ONCE(sem->owner);
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
if (!rwsem_owner_is_writer(owner)) {
|
2015-01-30 09:14:27 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
* Don't spin if the rwsem is readers owned.
|
2015-01-30 09:14:27 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
ret = !rwsem_owner_is_reader(owner);
|
2015-01-30 09:14:27 +00:00
|
|
|
goto done;
|
|
|
|
}
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-11-02 09:08:30 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if task is not
|
|
|
|
* on cpu or its cpu is preempted
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
ret = owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner));
|
2015-01-30 09:14:27 +00:00
|
|
|
done:
|
|
|
|
rcu_read_unlock();
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-18 01:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Return true only if we can still spin on the owner field of the rwsem.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static noinline bool rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-05-18 01:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
struct task_struct *owner = READ_ONCE(sem->owner);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!rwsem_owner_is_writer(owner))
|
|
|
|
goto out;
|
|
|
|
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
rcu_read_lock();
|
2015-03-07 07:45:31 +00:00
|
|
|
while (sem->owner == owner) {
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
|
|
|
|
* checking sem->owner still matches owner, if that fails,
|
|
|
|
* owner might point to free()d memory, if it still matches,
|
|
|
|
* the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
barrier();
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-02 09:08:30 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* abort spinning when need_resched or owner is not running or
|
|
|
|
* owner's cpu is preempted.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched() ||
|
|
|
|
vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner))) {
|
2015-01-30 09:14:26 +00:00
|
|
|
rcu_read_unlock();
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-25 09:03:14 +00:00
|
|
|
cpu_relax();
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
rcu_read_unlock();
|
2016-05-18 01:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
out:
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
* If there is a new owner or the owner is not set, we continue
|
|
|
|
* spinning.
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
return !rwsem_owner_is_reader(READ_ONCE(sem->owner));
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
bool taken = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
preempt_disable();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* sem->wait_lock should not be held when doing optimistic spinning */
|
|
|
|
if (!rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem))
|
|
|
|
goto done;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!osq_lock(&sem->osq))
|
|
|
|
goto done;
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-18 01:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Optimistically spin on the owner field and attempt to acquire the
|
|
|
|
* lock whenever the owner changes. Spinning will be stopped when:
|
|
|
|
* 1) the owning writer isn't running; or
|
|
|
|
* 2) readers own the lock as we can't determine if they are
|
|
|
|
* actively running or not.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
while (rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem)) {
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2016-05-18 01:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
* Try to acquire the lock
|
2016-05-18 01:26:19 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
if (rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(sem)) {
|
|
|
|
taken = true;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
|
|
|
|
* owner acquiring the lock and setting the owner field. If
|
|
|
|
* we're an RT task that will live-lock because we won't let
|
|
|
|
* the owner complete.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-05-18 01:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
if (!sem->owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(current)))
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
|
|
|
|
* everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need
|
|
|
|
* memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
|
|
|
|
* values at the cost of a few extra spins.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-10-25 09:03:14 +00:00
|
|
|
cpu_relax();
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
osq_unlock(&sem->osq);
|
|
|
|
done:
|
|
|
|
preempt_enable();
|
|
|
|
return taken;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-04-30 21:12:16 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Return true if the rwsem has active spinner
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static inline bool rwsem_has_spinner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return osq_is_locked(&sem->osq);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
#else
|
|
|
|
static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-04-30 21:12:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline bool rwsem_has_spinner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Wait until we successfully acquire the write lock
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline struct rw_semaphore *
|
|
|
|
__rwsem_down_write_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
long count;
|
|
|
|
bool waiting = true; /* any queued threads before us */
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rw_semaphore *ret = sem;
|
2016-11-17 16:46:38 +00:00
|
|
|
DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
/* undo write bias from down_write operation, stop active locking */
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
count = atomic_long_sub_return(RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS, &sem->count);
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* do optimistic spinning and steal lock if possible */
|
|
|
|
if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem))
|
|
|
|
return sem;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Optimistic spinning failed, proceed to the slowpath
|
|
|
|
* and block until we can acquire the sem.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
waiter.task = current;
|
2013-05-07 13:45:53 +00:00
|
|
|
waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* account for this before adding a new element to the list */
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
waiting = false;
|
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
if (waiting) {
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2014-06-04 18:19:48 +00:00
|
|
|
* If there were already threads queued before us and there are
|
|
|
|
* no active writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to
|
|
|
|
* wake any read locks that were queued ahead of us.
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
__rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS, &wake_q);
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The wakeup is normally called _after_ the wait_lock
|
|
|
|
* is released, but given that we are proactively waking
|
|
|
|
* readers we can deal with the wake_q overhead as it is
|
|
|
|
* similar to releasing and taking the wait_lock again
|
|
|
|
* for attempting rwsem_try_write_lock().
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
|
2017-01-22 02:33:35 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Reinitialize wake_q after use.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
wake_q_init(&wake_q);
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
count = atomic_long_add_return(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, &sem->count);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:53 +00:00
|
|
|
/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
set_current_state(state);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
while (true) {
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, sem))
|
|
|
|
break;
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Block until there are no active lockers. */
|
|
|
|
do {
|
2016-05-12 11:57:45 +00:00
|
|
|
if (signal_pending_state(state, current))
|
|
|
|
goto out_nolock;
|
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:56 +00:00
|
|
|
schedule();
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
set_current_state(state);
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
} while ((count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count)) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-05-07 13:45:53 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
locking/rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
We have reached the point where our mutexes are quite fine tuned
for a number of situations. This includes the use of heuristics
and optimistic spinning, based on MCS locking techniques.
Exclusive ownership of read-write semaphores are, conceptually,
just about the same as mutexes, making them close cousins. To
this end we need to make them both perform similarly, and
right now, rwsems are simply not up to it. This was discovered
by both reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 (mm/rmap, migration: Make
rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable) and
similarly, converting some other mutexes (ie: i_mmap_mutex) to
rwsems. This creates a situation where users have to choose
between a rwsem and mutex taking into account this important
performance difference. Specifically, biggest difference between
both locks is when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath,
optimistic spinning comes in to play and we can avoid a large
amount of unnecessary sleeping and overhead of moving tasks in
and out of wait queue. Rwsems do not have such logic.
This patch, based on the work from Tim Chen and I, adds support
for write-side optimistic spinning when the lock is contended.
It also includes support for the recently added cancelable MCS
locking for adaptive spinning. Note that is is only applicable
to the xadd method, and the spinlock rwsem variant remains intact.
Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait
queue reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance
for the rwsem to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par
with mutex. The performance benefits can be seen on a number of
workloads. For instance, on a 8 socket, 80 core 64bit Westmere box,
aim7 shows the following improvements in throughput:
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Workload | throughput-increase | number of users |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| alltests | 20% | >1000 |
| custom | 27%, 60% | 10-100, >1000 |
| high_systime | 36%, 30% | >100, >1000 |
| shared | 58%, 29% | 10-100, >1000 |
+--------------+---------------------+-----------------+
There was also improvement on smaller systems, such as a quad-core
x86-64 laptop running a 30Gb PostgreSQL (pgbench) workload for up
to +60% in throughput for over 50 clients. Additionally, benefits
were also noticed in exim (mail server) workloads. Furthermore, no
performance regression have been seen at all.
Based-on-work-from: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
[peterz: rej fixup due to comment patches, sched/rt.h header]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Scott J Norton" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1399055055.6275.15.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-05-02 18:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:53 +00:00
|
|
|
list_del(&waiter.list);
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
2013-05-07 13:45:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
return ret;
|
2016-05-12 11:57:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
out_nolock:
|
|
|
|
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
|
|
|
list_del(&waiter.list);
|
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
|
2016-06-04 05:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, &sem->count);
|
2016-05-12 11:57:45 +00:00
|
|
|
else
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
__rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
|
2016-05-12 11:57:45 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
|
2016-05-12 11:57:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__visible struct rw_semaphore * __sched
|
|
|
|
rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2014-09-12 05:34:25 +00:00
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_write_failed);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-07 15:12:26 +00:00
|
|
|
__visible struct rw_semaphore * __sched
|
|
|
|
rwsem_down_write_failed_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem, TASK_KILLABLE);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_write_failed_killable);
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* handle waking up a waiter on the semaphore
|
|
|
|
* - up_read/up_write has decremented the active part of count if we come here
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2014-02-08 07:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
__visible
|
2011-01-26 20:32:01 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
2016-11-17 16:46:38 +00:00
|
|
|
DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-04-30 21:12:16 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* If a spinner is present, it is not necessary to do the wakeup.
|
|
|
|
* Try to do wakeup only if the trylock succeeds to minimize
|
|
|
|
* spinlock contention which may introduce too much delay in the
|
|
|
|
* unlock operation.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* spinning writer up_write/up_read caller
|
|
|
|
* --------------- -----------------------
|
|
|
|
* [S] osq_unlock() [L] osq
|
|
|
|
* MB RMB
|
|
|
|
* [RmW] rwsem_try_write_lock() [RmW] spin_trylock(wait_lock)
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Here, it is important to make sure that there won't be a missed
|
|
|
|
* wakeup while the rwsem is free and the only spinning writer goes
|
|
|
|
* to sleep without taking the rwsem. Even when the spinning writer
|
|
|
|
* is just going to break out of the waiting loop, it will still do
|
|
|
|
* a trylock in rwsem_down_write_failed() before sleeping. IOW, if
|
|
|
|
* rwsem_has_spinner() is true, it will guarantee at least one
|
|
|
|
* trylock attempt on the rwsem later on.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
if (rwsem_has_spinner(sem)) {
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The smp_rmb() here is to make sure that the spinner
|
|
|
|
* state is consulted before reading the wait_lock.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
smp_rmb();
|
|
|
|
if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags))
|
|
|
|
return sem;
|
|
|
|
goto locked;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2010-02-24 08:54:54 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
|
2015-04-30 21:12:16 +00:00
|
|
|
locked:
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
__rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-02-24 08:54:54 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return sem;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2014-09-12 05:34:25 +00:00
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_wake);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* downgrade a write lock into a read lock
|
|
|
|
* - caller incremented waiting part of count and discovered it still negative
|
|
|
|
* - just wake up any readers at the front of the queue
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2014-02-08 07:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
__visible
|
2011-01-26 20:32:01 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_downgrade_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
2016-11-17 16:46:38 +00:00
|
|
|
DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-02-24 08:54:54 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
|
2016-08-05 08:04:43 +00:00
|
|
|
__rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED, &wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-02-24 08:54:54 +00:00
|
|
|
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
|
locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)
As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).
In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).
Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.
Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)
aim9:
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
Min page_test 378167.89 ( 0.00%) 382613.33 ( 1.18%)
Min exec_test 499.00 ( 0.00%) 502.67 ( 0.74%)
Min fork_test 3395.47 ( 0.00%) 3537.64 ( 4.19%)
Hmean page_test 395433.06 ( 0.00%) 414693.68 ( 4.87%)
Hmean exec_test 499.67 ( 0.00%) 505.30 ( 1.13%)
Hmean fork_test 3504.22 ( 0.00%) 3594.95 ( 2.59%)
Stddev page_test 17426.57 ( 0.00%) 26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev exec_test 0.47 ( 0.00%) 1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev fork_test 63.74 ( 0.00%) 32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max page_test 429873.33 ( 0.00%) 456960.00 ( 6.30%)
Max exec_test 500.33 ( 0.00%) 507.66 ( 1.47%)
Max fork_test 3653.33 ( 0.00%) 3650.90 ( -0.07%)
4.6-rc6 4.6-rc6
rwsemv2
User 1.12 0.04
System 0.23 0.04
Elapsed 727.27 721.98
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-05-13 18:56:26 +00:00
|
|
|
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
|
2005-04-16 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return sem;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_downgrade_wake);
|