On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:09 PM Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/21 11:13 PM, Guo Ren wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:01:41PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> >>> u32 a = 0x55aa66bb;
> >>> u16 *ptr = &a;
> >>>
> >>> CPU0 CPU1
> >>> ========= =========
> >>> xchg16(ptr, new) while(1)
> >>> WRITE_ONCE(*(ptr + 1), x);
> >>>
> >>> When we use lr.w/sc.w implement xchg16, it'll cause CPU0 deadlock.
> >> Then I think your LL/SC is broken.
> >>
> >> That also means you really don't want to build super complex locking
> >> primitives on top, because that live-lock will percolate through.
> > Do you mean the below implementation has live-lock risk?
> > +static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
> > +{
> > + u32 old, new, val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + new = (val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) | tail;
> > + old = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, new);
> > + if (old == val)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + val = old;
> > + }
> > + return old;
> > +}
> If there is a continuous stream of incoming spinlock takers, it is
> possible that some cpus may have to wait a long time to set the tail
> right. However, this should only happen on artificial workload. I doubt
> it will happen with real workload or with limit number of cpus.
Yes, I think is ok for LR/SC in riscv, becasue
CPU0 LR
CPU1 LR
CPU0 SC //success
CPU1 SC //fail
or
CPU0 LR
CPU1 LR
CPU1 SC //success
CPU0 SC //fail
So always one store condition would success. I think it's OK.
> >
> >> Step 1 would be to get your architecute fixed such that it can provide
> >> fwd progress guarantees for LL/SC. Otherwise there's absolutely no point
> >> in building complex systems with it.
> > Quote Waiman's comment [1] on xchg16 optimization:
> >
> > "This optimization is needed to make the qspinlock achieve performance
> > parity with ticket spinlock at light load."
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/1429901803-29771-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@xxxxxx/
> >
> > So for a non-xhg16 machine:
> > - ticket-lock for small numbers of CPUs
> > - qspinlock for large numbers of CPUs
> >
> > Okay, I'll put all of them into the next patch :P
> >
> It is true that qspinlock may not offer much advantage when the number
> of cpus is small. It shines for systems with many cpus. You may use
> NR_CPUS to determine if the default should be ticket or qspinlock with
> user override. To determine the right NR_CPUS threshold, you may need to
> run on real SMP RISCV systems to find out.
I Agree
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
