Searched +hist:4 +hist:f23dbc1 (Results 1 - 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
/linux-master/kernel/locking/ | ||
H A D | lock_events_list.h | diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com diff 617f3ef9 Fri Nov 20 21:14:16 MST 2020 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning disproportionally favors writers much more than readers. Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces reader parallelism. One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock. Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result. Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread) to see the impacts of these changes: 1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel 2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series 2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch 3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled # of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin ------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- -------- 2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077 4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760 8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628 16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402 32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098 64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957 96 1 1,938 944 957 930 2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665 4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101 8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213 16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122 32 20 967 914 917 980 64 20 787 874 891 858 96 20 730 836 847 844 2 100 372 356 360 355 4 100 492 425 434 392 8 100 533 537 529 538 16 100 548 572 568 598 32 100 499 520 527 537 64 100 466 517 526 512 96 100 406 497 506 509 The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long) are more realistic. It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation. The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark data. The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better performance on with heavier contention. This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com |
H A D | rwsem.c | diff d566c786 Thu Feb 22 08:05:39 MST 2024 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Clarify that RWSEM_READER_OWNED is just a hint Clarify in the comments that the RWSEM_READER_OWNED bit in the owner field is just a hint, not an authoritative state of the rwsem. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240222150540.79981-4-longman@redhat.com diff 1d61659c Wed Jan 25 17:36:27 MST 2023 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Disable preemption in all down_write*() and up_write() code paths The previous patch has disabled preemption in all the down_read() and up_read() code paths. For symmetry, this patch extends commit: 48dfb5d2560d ("locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for rwsem lock") ... to have preemption disabled in all the down_write() and up_write() code paths, including downgrade_write(). Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230126003628.365092-4-longman@redhat.com diff 1ee32619 Tue Mar 22 09:20:59 MDT 2022 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Always try to wake waiters in out_nolock path For writers, the out_nolock path will always attempt to wake up waiters. This may not be really necessary if the waiter to be removed is not the first one. For readers, no attempt to wake up waiter is being made. However, if the HANDOFF bit is set and the reader to be removed is the first waiter, the waiter behind it will inherit the HANDOFF bit and for a write lock waiter waking it up will allow it to spin on the lock to acquire it faster. So it can be beneficial to do a wakeup in this case. Add a new rwsem_del_wake_waiter() helper function to do that consistently for both reader and writer out_nolock paths. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322152059.2182333-4-longman@redhat.com diff 14c24048 Thu Nov 18 02:44:55 MST 2021 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock() under highly contended case We found that a process with 10 thousnads threads has been encountered a regression problem from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4. It is a kind of workload which will concurrently allocate lots of memory in different threads sometimes. In this case, we will see the down_read_trylock() with a high hotspot. Therefore, we suppose that rwsem has a regression at least since Linux-v5.4. In order to easily debug this problem, we write a simply benchmark to create the similar situation lile the following. ```c++ #include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <sys/resource.h> #include <sched.h> #include <cstdio> #include <cassert> #include <thread> #include <vector> #include <chrono> volatile int mutex; void trigger(int cpu, char* ptr, std::size_t sz) { cpu_set_t set; CPU_ZERO(&set); CPU_SET(cpu, &set); assert(pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(set), &set) == 0); while (mutex); for (std::size_t i = 0; i < sz; i += 4096) { *ptr = '\0'; ptr += 4096; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::size_t sz = 100; if (argc > 1) sz = atoi(argv[1]); auto nproc = std::thread::hardware_concurrency(); std::vector<std::thread> thr; sz <<= 30; auto* ptr = mmap(nullptr, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0); assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED); char* cptr = static_cast<char*>(ptr); auto run = sz / nproc; run = (run >> 12) << 12; mutex = 1; for (auto i = 0U; i < nproc; ++i) { thr.emplace_back(std::thread([i, cptr, run]() { trigger(i, cptr, run); })); cptr += run; } rusage usage_start; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_start); auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); mutex = 0; for (auto& t : thr) t.join(); rusage usage_end; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_end); auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); timeval utime; timeval stime; timersub(&usage_end.ru_utime, &usage_start.ru_utime, &utime); timersub(&usage_end.ru_stime, &usage_start.ru_stime, &stime); printf("usr: %ld.%06ld\n", utime.tv_sec, utime.tv_usec); printf("sys: %ld.%06ld\n", stime.tv_sec, stime.tv_usec); printf("real: %lu\n", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end - start).count()); return 0; } ``` The functionality of above program is simply which creates `nproc` threads and each of them are trying to touch memory (trigger page fault) on different CPU. Then we will see the similar profile by `perf top`. 25.55% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock 14.78% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault 13.45% [kernel] [k] up_read 8.61% [kernel] [k] clear_page_erms 3.89% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault The highest hot instruction, which accounts for about 92%, in down_read_trylock() is cmpxchg like the following. 91.89 │ lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi) Sice the problem is found by migrating from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4, so we easily found that the commit ddb20d1d3aed ("locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()") caused the regression. The reason is that the commit assumes the rwsem is not contended at all. But it is not always true for mmap lock which could be contended with thousands threads. So most threads almost need to run at least 2 times of "cmpxchg" to acquire the lock. The overhead of atomic operation is higher than non-atomic instructions, which caused the regression. By using the above benchmark, the real executing time on a x86-64 system before and after the patch were: Before Patch After Patch # of Threads real real reduced by ------------ ------ ------ ---------- 1 65,373 65,206 ~0.0% 4 15,467 15,378 ~0.5% 40 6,214 5,528 ~11.0% For the uncontended case, the new down_read_trylock() is the same as before. For the contended cases, the new down_read_trylock() is faster than before. The more contended, the more fast. Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211118094455.9068-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com diff 14c24048 Thu Nov 18 02:44:55 MST 2021 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock() under highly contended case We found that a process with 10 thousnads threads has been encountered a regression problem from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4. It is a kind of workload which will concurrently allocate lots of memory in different threads sometimes. In this case, we will see the down_read_trylock() with a high hotspot. Therefore, we suppose that rwsem has a regression at least since Linux-v5.4. In order to easily debug this problem, we write a simply benchmark to create the similar situation lile the following. ```c++ #include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <sys/resource.h> #include <sched.h> #include <cstdio> #include <cassert> #include <thread> #include <vector> #include <chrono> volatile int mutex; void trigger(int cpu, char* ptr, std::size_t sz) { cpu_set_t set; CPU_ZERO(&set); CPU_SET(cpu, &set); assert(pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(set), &set) == 0); while (mutex); for (std::size_t i = 0; i < sz; i += 4096) { *ptr = '\0'; ptr += 4096; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::size_t sz = 100; if (argc > 1) sz = atoi(argv[1]); auto nproc = std::thread::hardware_concurrency(); std::vector<std::thread> thr; sz <<= 30; auto* ptr = mmap(nullptr, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0); assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED); char* cptr = static_cast<char*>(ptr); auto run = sz / nproc; run = (run >> 12) << 12; mutex = 1; for (auto i = 0U; i < nproc; ++i) { thr.emplace_back(std::thread([i, cptr, run]() { trigger(i, cptr, run); })); cptr += run; } rusage usage_start; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_start); auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); mutex = 0; for (auto& t : thr) t.join(); rusage usage_end; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_end); auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); timeval utime; timeval stime; timersub(&usage_end.ru_utime, &usage_start.ru_utime, &utime); timersub(&usage_end.ru_stime, &usage_start.ru_stime, &stime); printf("usr: %ld.%06ld\n", utime.tv_sec, utime.tv_usec); printf("sys: %ld.%06ld\n", stime.tv_sec, stime.tv_usec); printf("real: %lu\n", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end - start).count()); return 0; } ``` The functionality of above program is simply which creates `nproc` threads and each of them are trying to touch memory (trigger page fault) on different CPU. Then we will see the similar profile by `perf top`. 25.55% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock 14.78% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault 13.45% [kernel] [k] up_read 8.61% [kernel] [k] clear_page_erms 3.89% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault The highest hot instruction, which accounts for about 92%, in down_read_trylock() is cmpxchg like the following. 91.89 │ lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi) Sice the problem is found by migrating from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4, so we easily found that the commit ddb20d1d3aed ("locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()") caused the regression. The reason is that the commit assumes the rwsem is not contended at all. But it is not always true for mmap lock which could be contended with thousands threads. So most threads almost need to run at least 2 times of "cmpxchg" to acquire the lock. The overhead of atomic operation is higher than non-atomic instructions, which caused the regression. By using the above benchmark, the real executing time on a x86-64 system before and after the patch were: Before Patch After Patch # of Threads real real reduced by ------------ ------ ------ ---------- 1 65,373 65,206 ~0.0% 4 15,467 15,378 ~0.5% 40 6,214 5,528 ~11.0% For the uncontended case, the new down_read_trylock() is the same as before. For the contended cases, the new down_read_trylock() is faster than before. The more contended, the more fast. Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211118094455.9068-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com diff 14c24048 Thu Nov 18 02:44:55 MST 2021 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock() under highly contended case We found that a process with 10 thousnads threads has been encountered a regression problem from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4. It is a kind of workload which will concurrently allocate lots of memory in different threads sometimes. In this case, we will see the down_read_trylock() with a high hotspot. Therefore, we suppose that rwsem has a regression at least since Linux-v5.4. In order to easily debug this problem, we write a simply benchmark to create the similar situation lile the following. ```c++ #include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <sys/resource.h> #include <sched.h> #include <cstdio> #include <cassert> #include <thread> #include <vector> #include <chrono> volatile int mutex; void trigger(int cpu, char* ptr, std::size_t sz) { cpu_set_t set; CPU_ZERO(&set); CPU_SET(cpu, &set); assert(pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(set), &set) == 0); while (mutex); for (std::size_t i = 0; i < sz; i += 4096) { *ptr = '\0'; ptr += 4096; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::size_t sz = 100; if (argc > 1) sz = atoi(argv[1]); auto nproc = std::thread::hardware_concurrency(); std::vector<std::thread> thr; sz <<= 30; auto* ptr = mmap(nullptr, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0); assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED); char* cptr = static_cast<char*>(ptr); auto run = sz / nproc; run = (run >> 12) << 12; mutex = 1; for (auto i = 0U; i < nproc; ++i) { thr.emplace_back(std::thread([i, cptr, run]() { trigger(i, cptr, run); })); cptr += run; } rusage usage_start; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_start); auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); mutex = 0; for (auto& t : thr) t.join(); rusage usage_end; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_end); auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); timeval utime; timeval stime; timersub(&usage_end.ru_utime, &usage_start.ru_utime, &utime); timersub(&usage_end.ru_stime, &usage_start.ru_stime, &stime); printf("usr: %ld.%06ld\n", utime.tv_sec, utime.tv_usec); printf("sys: %ld.%06ld\n", stime.tv_sec, stime.tv_usec); printf("real: %lu\n", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end - start).count()); return 0; } ``` The functionality of above program is simply which creates `nproc` threads and each of them are trying to touch memory (trigger page fault) on different CPU. Then we will see the similar profile by `perf top`. 25.55% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock 14.78% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault 13.45% [kernel] [k] up_read 8.61% [kernel] [k] clear_page_erms 3.89% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault The highest hot instruction, which accounts for about 92%, in down_read_trylock() is cmpxchg like the following. 91.89 │ lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi) Sice the problem is found by migrating from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4, so we easily found that the commit ddb20d1d3aed ("locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()") caused the regression. The reason is that the commit assumes the rwsem is not contended at all. But it is not always true for mmap lock which could be contended with thousands threads. So most threads almost need to run at least 2 times of "cmpxchg" to acquire the lock. The overhead of atomic operation is higher than non-atomic instructions, which caused the regression. By using the above benchmark, the real executing time on a x86-64 system before and after the patch were: Before Patch After Patch # of Threads real real reduced by ------------ ------ ------ ---------- 1 65,373 65,206 ~0.0% 4 15,467 15,378 ~0.5% 40 6,214 5,528 ~11.0% For the uncontended case, the new down_read_trylock() is the same as before. For the contended cases, the new down_read_trylock() is faster than before. The more contended, the more fast. Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211118094455.9068-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com diff 14c24048 Thu Nov 18 02:44:55 MST 2021 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock() under highly contended case We found that a process with 10 thousnads threads has been encountered a regression problem from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4. It is a kind of workload which will concurrently allocate lots of memory in different threads sometimes. In this case, we will see the down_read_trylock() with a high hotspot. Therefore, we suppose that rwsem has a regression at least since Linux-v5.4. In order to easily debug this problem, we write a simply benchmark to create the similar situation lile the following. ```c++ #include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <sys/resource.h> #include <sched.h> #include <cstdio> #include <cassert> #include <thread> #include <vector> #include <chrono> volatile int mutex; void trigger(int cpu, char* ptr, std::size_t sz) { cpu_set_t set; CPU_ZERO(&set); CPU_SET(cpu, &set); assert(pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(set), &set) == 0); while (mutex); for (std::size_t i = 0; i < sz; i += 4096) { *ptr = '\0'; ptr += 4096; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::size_t sz = 100; if (argc > 1) sz = atoi(argv[1]); auto nproc = std::thread::hardware_concurrency(); std::vector<std::thread> thr; sz <<= 30; auto* ptr = mmap(nullptr, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0); assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED); char* cptr = static_cast<char*>(ptr); auto run = sz / nproc; run = (run >> 12) << 12; mutex = 1; for (auto i = 0U; i < nproc; ++i) { thr.emplace_back(std::thread([i, cptr, run]() { trigger(i, cptr, run); })); cptr += run; } rusage usage_start; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_start); auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); mutex = 0; for (auto& t : thr) t.join(); rusage usage_end; getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_end); auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now(); timeval utime; timeval stime; timersub(&usage_end.ru_utime, &usage_start.ru_utime, &utime); timersub(&usage_end.ru_stime, &usage_start.ru_stime, &stime); printf("usr: %ld.%06ld\n", utime.tv_sec, utime.tv_usec); printf("sys: %ld.%06ld\n", stime.tv_sec, stime.tv_usec); printf("real: %lu\n", std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end - start).count()); return 0; } ``` The functionality of above program is simply which creates `nproc` threads and each of them are trying to touch memory (trigger page fault) on different CPU. Then we will see the similar profile by `perf top`. 25.55% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock 14.78% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault 13.45% [kernel] [k] up_read 8.61% [kernel] [k] clear_page_erms 3.89% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault The highest hot instruction, which accounts for about 92%, in down_read_trylock() is cmpxchg like the following. 91.89 │ lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi) Sice the problem is found by migrating from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4, so we easily found that the commit ddb20d1d3aed ("locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()") caused the regression. The reason is that the commit assumes the rwsem is not contended at all. But it is not always true for mmap lock which could be contended with thousands threads. So most threads almost need to run at least 2 times of "cmpxchg" to acquire the lock. The overhead of atomic operation is higher than non-atomic instructions, which caused the regression. By using the above benchmark, the real executing time on a x86-64 system before and after the patch were: Before Patch After Patch # of Threads real real reduced by ------------ ------ ------ ---------- 1 65,373 65,206 ~0.0% 4 15,467 15,378 ~0.5% 40 6,214 5,528 ~11.0% For the uncontended case, the new down_read_trylock() is the same as before. For the contended cases, the new down_read_trylock() is faster than before. The more contended, the more fast. Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211118094455.9068-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com diff d257cc8c Mon Nov 15 18:29:12 MST 2021 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent There are some inconsistency in the way that the handoff bit is being handled in readers and writers that lead to a race condition. Firstly, when a queue head writer set the handoff bit, it will clear it when the writer is being killed or interrupted on its way out without acquiring the lock. That is not the case for a queue head reader. The handoff bit will simply be inherited by the next waiter. Secondly, in the out_nolock path of rwsem_down_read_slowpath(), both the waiter and handoff bits are cleared if the wait queue becomes empty. For rwsem_down_write_slowpath(), however, the handoff bit is not checked and cleared if the wait queue is empty. This can potentially make the handoff bit set with empty wait queue. Worse, the situation in rwsem_down_write_slowpath() relies on wstate, a variable set outside of the critical section containing the ->count manipulation, this leads to race condition where RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF can be double subtracted, corrupting ->count. To make the handoff bit handling more consistent and robust, extract out handoff bit clearing code into the new rwsem_del_waiter() helper function. Also, completely eradicate wstate; always evaluate everything inside the same critical section. The common function will only use atomic_long_andnot() to clear bits when the wait queue is empty to avoid possible race condition. If the first waiter with handoff bit set is killed or interrupted to exit the slowpath without acquiring the lock, the next waiter will inherit the handoff bit. While at it, simplify the trylock for loop in rwsem_down_write_slowpath() to make it easier to read. Fixes: 4f23dbc1e657 ("locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation") Reported-by: Zhenhua Ma <mazhenhua@xiaomi.com> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211116012912.723980-1-longman@redhat.com diff 5197fcd0 Wed Oct 13 07:41:54 MDT 2021 Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com> locking/rwsem: Fix comments about reader optimistic lock stealing conditions After the commit 617f3ef95177 ("locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning"), reader doesn't support optimistic spinning anymore, there is no need meet the condition which OSQ is empty. BTW, add an unlikely() for the max reader wakeup check in the loop. Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211013134154.1085649-4-yanfei.xu@windriver.com diff 4faf62b1 Tue Mar 16 22:18:06 MDT 2021 Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com> locking/rwsem: Fix comment typo s/folowing/following/ Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210317041806.4096156-1-unixbhaskar@gmail.com |
Completed in 475 milliseconds