LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, longman@redhat.com,
	will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: [PATCH v3 11/14] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb()
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:34:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1524738868-31318-12-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1524738868-31318-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>

The qspinlock slowpath must ensure that the MCS node is fully initialised
before it can be reached by another other CPU. This is currently enforced
by using a RELEASE operation when updating the tail and also when linking
the node into the waitqueue (since the control dependency off xchg_tail
is insufficient to enforce sufficient ordering -- see 95bcade33a8a
("locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised before updating prev->next")).

Back-to-back RELEASE operations may be expensive on some architectures,
particularly those that implement them using fences under the hood. We
can replace the two RELEASE operations with a single smp_wmb() fence and
use RELAXED operations for the subsequent publishing of the node.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index 7b8c81ebb15e..fa5d2ab369f9 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -164,10 +164,10 @@ static __always_inline void clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock)
 static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
 {
 	/*
-	 * Use release semantics to make sure that the MCS node is properly
-	 * initialized before changing the tail code.
+	 * We can use relaxed semantics since the caller ensures that the
+	 * MCS node is properly initialized before updating the tail.
 	 */
-	return (u32)xchg_release(&lock->tail,
+	return (u32)xchg_relaxed(&lock->tail,
 				 tail >> _Q_TAIL_OFFSET) << _Q_TAIL_OFFSET;
 }
 
@@ -212,10 +212,11 @@ static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
 	for (;;) {
 		new = (val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
 		/*
-		 * Use release semantics to make sure that the MCS node is
-		 * properly initialized before changing the tail code.
+		 * We can use relaxed semantics since the caller ensures that
+		 * the MCS node is properly initialized before updating the
+		 * tail.
 		 */
-		old = atomic_cmpxchg_release(&lock->val, val, new);
+		old = atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, val, new);
 		if (old == val)
 			break;
 
@@ -388,12 +389,18 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 		goto release;
 
 	/*
+	 * Ensure that the initialisation of @node is complete before we
+	 * publish the updated tail via xchg_tail() and potentially link
+	 * @node into the waitqueue via WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node) below.
+	 */
+	smp_wmb();
+
+	/*
+	 * Publish the updated tail.
 	 * We have already touched the queueing cacheline; don't bother with
 	 * pending stuff.
 	 *
 	 * p,*,* -> n,*,*
-	 *
-	 * RELEASE, such that the stores to @node must be complete.
 	 */
 	old = xchg_tail(lock, tail);
 	next = NULL;
@@ -405,14 +412,8 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	if (old & _Q_TAIL_MASK) {
 		prev = decode_tail(old);
 
-		/*
-		 * We must ensure that the stores to @node are observed before
-		 * the write to prev->next. The address dependency from
-		 * xchg_tail is not sufficient to ensure this because the read
-		 * component of xchg_tail is unordered with respect to the
-		 * initialisation of @node.
-		 */
-		smp_store_release(&prev->next, node);
+		/* Link @node into the waitqueue. */
+		WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
 
 		pv_wait_node(node, prev);
 		arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended(&node->locked);
-- 
2.1.4

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-04-26 10:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-26 10:34 [PATCH v3 00/14] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 01/14] barriers: Introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed and atomic_cond_read_relaxed Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:36   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/barriers: Introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed() and atomic_cond_read_relaxed() tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 02/14] locking/qspinlock: Merge struct __qspinlock into struct qspinlock Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:37   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Merge 'struct __qspinlock' into 'struct qspinlock' tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 03/14] locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:37   ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 04/14] locking/qspinlock/x86: Increase _Q_PENDING_LOOPS upper bound Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:38   ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 05/14] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-26 15:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 16:55     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-28 12:45       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-30  8:53         ` Will Deacon
2018-04-26 20:16   ` Waiman Long
2018-04-27 10:16     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-27 11:01       ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Remove duplicate clear_pending() function from PV code tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-27 13:09       ` [PATCH v3 05/14] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Waiman Long
2018-04-27  9:39   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() " tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 06/14] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg loop when claiming lock from head of queue Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:39   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg() " tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 07/14] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:40   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire() tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 08/14] locking/mcs: Use smp_cond_load_acquire() in mcs spin loop Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:40   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/mcs: Use smp_cond_load_acquire() in MCS " tip-bot for Jason Low
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 09/14] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_relaxed to wait for next node Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:41   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_relaxed() " tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 10/14] locking/qspinlock: Make queued_spin_unlock use smp_store_release Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:42   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_store_release() in queued_spin_unlock() tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-04-27  9:42   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb() tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 12/14] locking/qspinlock: Use try_cmpxchg instead of cmpxchg when locking Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:43   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Use try_cmpxchg() instead of cmpxchg() " tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 13/14] locking/qspinlock: Add stat tracking for pending vs slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-27  9:43   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qspinlock: Add stat tracking for pending vs. slowpath tip-bot for Waiman Long
2018-04-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v3 14/14] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as a co-maintainer for LOCKING PRIMITIVES Will Deacon
2018-04-26 15:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-27  9:44   ` [tip:locking/core] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as a co-maintainer for the locking subsystem tip-bot for Will Deacon
2018-04-26 15:54 ` [PATCH v3 00/14] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-27  9:33   ` Ingo Molnar
2018-04-26 20:18 ` Waiman Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1524738868-31318-12-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v3 11/14] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb()' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).