lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] locking/qrwlock: Reduce reader/writer to reader lock transfer latency
Hi Waiman,

On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:43:04PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> Currently, a reader will check first to make sure that the writer mode
> byte is cleared before incrementing the reader count. That waiting is
> not really necessary. It increases the latency in the reader/writer
> to reader transition and reduces readers performance.
>
> This patch eliminates that waiting. It also has the side effect
> of reducing the chance of writer lock stealing and improving the
> fairness of the lock. Using a locking microbenchmark, a 10-threads 5M
> locking loop of mostly readers (RW ratio = 10,000:1) has the following
> performance numbers in a Haswell-EX box:
>
> Kernel Locking Rate (Kops/s)
> ------ ---------------------
> 4.1.1 15,063,081
> Patched 4.1.1 17,241,552
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>

I've just finished rebasing my arm64 qrwlock stuff, but I think it will
conflict with these patches. Do you mind if I post them for review anyway,
so we can at least co-ordinate our efforts?

> ---
> kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 12 ++++--------
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index 81bae99..ecd2d19 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -88,15 +88,11 @@ void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
> arch_spin_lock(&lock->lock);
>
> /*
> - * At the head of the wait queue now, wait until the writer state
> - * goes to 0 and then try to increment the reader count and get
> - * the lock. It is possible that an incoming writer may steal the
> - * lock in the interim, so it is necessary to check the writer byte
> - * to make sure that the write lock isn't taken.
> + * At the head of the wait queue now, increment the reader count
> + * and wait until the writer, if it has the lock, has gone away.
> + * At ths stage, it is not possible for a writer to remain in the
> + * waiting state (_QW_WAITING). So there won't be any deadlock.
> */
> - while (atomic_read(&lock->cnts) & _QW_WMASK)
> - cpu_relax_lowlatency();

Thinking about it, can we kill _QW_WAITING altogether and set (cmpxchg
from 0) wmode to _QW_LOCKED in the write_lock slowpath, polling (acquire)
rmode until it hits zero?

Will


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-06 20:41    [W:0.087 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site