Re: [PATCH 8/9] qspinlock: Generic paravirt support

[Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>]

On 03/16/2015 09:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Implement simple paravirt support for the qspinlock.

Provide a separate (second) version of the spin_lock_slowpath for
paravirt along with a special unlock path.

The second slowpath is generated by adding a few pv hooks to the
normal slowpath, but where those will compile away for the native
case, they expand into special wait/wake code for the pv version.

The actual MCS queue can use extra storage in the mcs_nodes[] array to
keep track of state and therefore uses directed wakeups.

The head contender has no such storage available and reverts to the
per-cpu lock entry similar to the current kvm code. We can do a single
enrty because any nesting will wake the vcpu and cause the lower loop
to retry.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h     |    3 
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c          |   69 +++++++++++++-
 kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h |  177 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
@@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ static __always_inline bool virt_queue_s
 }
 #endif
 
+extern void __pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
+extern void __pv_queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock);
+
 /*
  * Initializier
  */
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -18,6 +18,9 @@
  * Authors: Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>
  *          Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  */
+
+#ifndef _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH
+
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 #include <linux/bug.h>
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
@@ -65,13 +68,21 @@
 
 #include "mcs_spinlock.h"
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
+#define MAX_NODES	8
+#else
+#define MAX_NODES	4
+#endif
+
 /*
  * Per-CPU queue node structures; we can never have more than 4 nested
  * contexts: task, softirq, hardirq, nmi.
  *
  * Exactly fits one 64-byte cacheline on a 64-bit architecture.
+ *
+ * PV doubles the storage and uses the second cacheline for PV state.
  */
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct mcs_spinlock, mcs_nodes[4]);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct mcs_spinlock, mcs_nodes[MAX_NODES]);
 
 /*
  * We must be able to distinguish between no-tail and the tail at 0:0,
@@ -230,6 +241,32 @@ static __always_inline void set_locked(s
 	WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
 }
 
+
+/*
+ * Generate the native code for queue_spin_unlock_slowpath(); provide NOPs for
+ * all the PV callbacks.
+ */
+
+static __always_inline void __pv_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node) { }
+static __always_inline void __pv_wait_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node) { }
+static __always_inline void __pv_kick_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node) { }
+
+static __always_inline void __pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock) { }
+
+#define pv_enabled()		false
+
+#define pv_init_node		__pv_init_node
+#define pv_wait_node		__pv_wait_node
+#define pv_kick_node		__pv_kick_node
+
+#define pv_wait_head		__pv_wait_head
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
+#define queue_spin_lock_slowpath	native_queue_spin_lock_slowpath
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH */
+
 /**
  * queue_spin_lock_slowpath - acquire the queue spinlock
  * @lock: Pointer to queue spinlock structure
@@ -259,6 +296,9 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
 
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS >= (1U << _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS));
 
+	if (pv_enabled())
+		goto queue;
+
 	if (virt_queue_spin_lock(lock))
 		return;
 
@@ -335,6 +375,7 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
 	node += idx;
 	node->locked = 0;
 	node->next = NULL;
+	pv_init_node(node);
 
 	/*
 	 * We touched a (possibly) cold cacheline in the per-cpu queue node;
@@ -360,6 +401,7 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
 		prev = decode_tail(old);
 		WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
 
+		pv_wait_node(node);
 		arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended(&node->locked);
 	}
 
@@ -374,6 +416,7 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
 	 * sequentiality; this is because the set_locked() function below
 	 * does not imply a full barrier.
 	 */
+	pv_wait_head(lock);
 	while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter)) & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK)
 		cpu_relax();
 
@@ -406,6 +449,7 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
 		cpu_relax();
 
 	arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked);
+	pv_kick_node(next);
 
 release:
 	/*
@@ -414,3 +458,26 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qsp
 	this_cpu_dec(mcs_nodes[0].count);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(queue_spin_lock_slowpath);
+
+/*
+ * Generate the paravirt code for queue_spin_unlock_slowpath().
+ */
+#if !defined(_GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH) && defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS)
+#define _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH
+
+#undef pv_enabled
+#define pv_enabled()	true
+
+#undef pv_init_node
+#undef pv_wait_node
+#undef pv_kick_node
+
+#undef pv_wait_head
+
+#undef queue_spin_lock_slowpath
+#define queue_spin_lock_slowpath	__pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath
+
+#include "qspinlock_paravirt.h"
+#include "qspinlock.c"
+
+#endif
--- /dev/null
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+#ifndef _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH
+#error "do not include this file"
+#endif
+
+/*
+ * Implement paravirt qspinlocks; the general idea is to halt the vcpus instead
+ * of spinning them.
+ *
+ * This relies on the architecture to provide two paravirt hypercalls:
+ *
+ *   pv_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val) -- suspends the vcpu if *ptr == val
+ *   pv_kick(cpu)             -- wakes a suspended vcpu
+ *
+ * Using these we implement __pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath() and
+ * __pv_queue_spin_unlock() to replace native_queue_spin_lock_slowpath() and
+ * native_queue_spin_unlock().
+ */
+
+#define _Q_SLOW_VAL	(2U << _Q_LOCKED_OFFSET)
+
+enum vcpu_state {
+	vcpu_running = 0,
+	vcpu_halted,
+};
+
+struct pv_node {
+	struct mcs_spinlock	mcs;
+	struct mcs_spinlock	__res[3];
+
+	int			cpu;
+	u8			state;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Initialize the PV part of the mcs_spinlock node.
+ */
+static void pv_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+	struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;
+
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct pv_node) > 5*sizeof(struct mcs_spinlock));
+
+	pn->cpu = smp_processor_id();
+	pn->state = vcpu_running;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Wait for node->locked to become true, halt the vcpu after a short spin.
+ * pv_kick_node() is used to wake the vcpu again.
+ */
+static void pv_wait_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+	struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;
+	int loop;
+
+	for (;;) {
+		for (loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; loop--) {
+			if (READ_ONCE(node->locked))
+				goto done;
+
+			cpu_relax();
+		}
+
+		/*
+		 * Order pn->state vs pn->locked thusly:
+		 *
+		 * [S] pn->state = vcpu_halted	  [S] next->locked = 1
+		 *     MB			      MB
+		 * [L] pn->locked		[RmW] pn->state = vcpu_running
+		 *
+		 * Matches the xchg() from pv_kick_node().
+		 */
+		(void)xchg(&pn->state, vcpu_halted);
+
+		if (READ_ONCE(node->locked))
+			goto done;
+
+		pv_wait(&pn->state, vcpu_halted);
+	}
+done:
+	pn->state = vcpu_running;
+
+	/*
+	 * By now our node->locked should be 1 and our caller will not actually
+	 * spin-wait for it. We do however rely on our caller to do a
+	 * load-acquire for us.
+	 */
+}
+
+/*
+ * Called after setting next->locked = 1, used to wake those stuck in
+ * pv_wait_node().
+ */
+static void pv_kick_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+	struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;
+
+	/*
+	 * Note that because node->locked is already set, this actual mcs_spinlock
+	 * entry could be re-used already.
+	 *
+	 * This should be fine however, kicking people for no reason is harmless.
+	 *
+	 * See the comment in pv_wait_node().
+	 */
+	if (xchg(&pn->state, vcpu_running) == vcpu_halted)
+		pv_kick(pn->cpu);
+}
+
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct qspinlock *, __pv_lock_wait);
+
+/*
+ * Wait for l->locked to become clear; halt the vcpu after a short spin.
+ * __pv_queue_spin_unlock() will wake us.
+ */
+static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+	int loop;
+
+	for (;;) {
+		for (loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; loop--) {
+			if (!READ_ONCE(l->locked))
+				goto done;
+
+			cpu_relax();
+		}
+
+		this_cpu_write(__pv_lock_wait, lock);

We may run into the same problem of needing to have 4 queue nodes per CPU. If an interrupt happens just after the write and before the actual wait and it goes through the same sequence, it will overwrite the __pv_lock_wait[] entry. So we may have lost wakeup. That is why the pvticket lock code did that just before the actual wait with interrupt disabled. We probably couldn't disable interrupt here. So we may need to move the actual write to the KVM and Xen code if we keep the current logic.

+		/*
+		 * __pv_lock_wait must be set before setting _Q_SLOW_VAL
+		 *
+		 * [S] __pv_lock_wait = lock    [RmW] l = l->locked = 0
+		 *     MB                             MB
+		 * [S] l->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL  [L]   __pv_lock_wait
+		 *
+		 * Matches the xchg() in pv_queue_spin_unlock().
+		 */
+		if (!cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, _Q_SLOW_VAL))
+			goto done;
+
+		pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
+	}
+done:
+	this_cpu_write(__pv_lock_wait, NULL);
+
+	/*
+	 * Lock is unlocked now; the caller will acquire it without waiting.
+	 * As with pv_wait_node() we rely on the caller to do a load-acquire
+	 * for us.
+	 */
+}
+
+/*
+ * To be used in stead of queue_spin_unlock() for paravirt locks. Wakes
+ * pv_wait_head() if appropriate.
+ */
+void __pv_queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+	int cpu;
+
+	if (xchg(&l->locked, 0) != _Q_SLOW_VAL)
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * At this point the memory pointed at by lock can be freed/reused,
+	 * however we can still use the pointer value to search in our cpu
+	 * array.
+	 *
+	 * XXX: get rid of this loop
+	 */
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		if (per_cpu(__pv_lock_wait, cpu) == lock)
+			pv_kick(cpu);
+	}
+}

I do want to get rid of this loop too. On average, we have to scan about half the number of CPUs available. So it isn't that different performance-wise compared with my original idea of following the list from tail to head. And how about your idea of propagating the current head down the linked list?

-Longman

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization