Re: [PATCH v15 3/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 07:14:05PM -0400, Guo Ren wrote:
>
> > The pv_ops is belongs to x86 custom frame work, and it prevent other
> > architectures connect to the CNA spinlock.
>
> static_call() exists as a arch neutral variant of this.
Emm... we have used static_call() in the riscv queued_spin_lock_:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230802164701.192791-20-guoren@xxxxxxxxxx/

But we met a compile problem:

  GEN     .vmlinux.objs
  MODPOST Module.symvers
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [arch/riscv/kvm/kvm.ko]
undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock"
[kernel/locking/locktorture.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [mm/z3fold.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock"
[fs/nfs_common/grace.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [fs/quota/quota_v1.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [fs/quota/quota_v2.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock"
[fs/quota/quota_tree.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [fs/fuse/virtiofs.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [fs/dlm/dlm.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock" [fs/fscache/fscache.ko]
undefined!
WARNING: modpost: suppressed 839 unresolved symbol warnings because
there were too many)
/home/guoren/source/kernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.modpost:144: recipe
for target 'Module.symvers' failed

Our solution is:
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__SCK__pv_queued_spin_unlock);

What do you think about it?

>
> > I'm working on riscv qspinlock on sg2042 64 cores 2/4 NUMA nodes
> > platforms. Here are the patches about riscv CNA qspinlock:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230802164701.192791-19-guoren@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > What's the next plan for this patch series? I think the two-queue design
> > has satisfied most platforms with two NUMA nodes.
>
> What has been your reason for working on CNA? What lock has been so
> contended you need this?
I wrote the reason here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230802164701.192791-1-guoren@xxxxxxxxxx/

The target platform is: https://www.sophon.ai/

The two NUMA nodes platform has come out, so we want to measure the
benefit of CNA qspinlock.

Any feedbacks are welcome :)

-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux