On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:32:20PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
> > Subject: locking/percpu-rwsem: Use this_cpu_{inc,dec}() for read_count
> > From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:07:50 +0800
> >
> > From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The __this_cpu*() accessors are (in general) IRQ-unsafe which, given
> > that percpu-rwsem is a blocking primitive, should be just fine.
> >
> > However, file_end_write() is used from IRQ context and will cause
> > load-store issues.
> >
> > Fixing it by using the IRQ-safe this_cpu_*() for operations on
> > read_count. This will generate more expensive code on a number of
> > platforms, which might cause a performance regression for some of the
> > other percpu-rwsem users.
> >
> > If any such is reported, we can consider alternative solutions.
> >
> I have simply test the performance impact on both x86 and aarch64.
>
> There is no degradation under x86 (2 sockets, 18 core per sockets, 2 threads per core)
>
> v5.8.9
> no writer, reader cn | 18 | 36 | 72
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second | 231423957 | 230737381 | 109943028
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second (patched) | 232864799 | 233555210 | 109768011
>
> However the performance degradation is huge under aarch64 (4 sockets, 24 core per sockets): nearly 60% lost.
>
> v4.19.111
> no writer, reader cn | 24 | 48 | 72 | 96
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second | 166129572 | 166064100 | 165963448 | 165203565
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second (patched) | 63863506 | 63842132 | 63757267 | 63514920
>
> I will test the aarch64 host by using v5.8 tomorrow.
Thanks. We did improve the preempt_count() munging a bit since 4.19 (I
think), so maybe 5.8 will be a bit better. Please report back!
Will
