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

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

 



On 03/19/2015 08:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:12:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I was now thinking of hashing the lock pointer; let me go and quickly
put something together.
A little something like so; ideally we'd allocate the hashtable since
NR_CPUS is kinda bloated, but it shows the idea I think.

And while this has loops in (the rehashing thing) their fwd progress
does not depend on other CPUs.

And I suspect that for the typical lock contention scenarios its
unlikely we ever really get into long rehashing chains.

---
  include/linux/lfsr.h                |   49 ++++++++++++
  kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h |  143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
  2 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

--- /dev/null

+
+static int pv_hash_find(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	u64 hash = hash_ptr(lock, PV_LOCK_HASH_BITS);
+	struct pv_hash_bucket *hb, *end;
+	int cpu = -1;
+
+	if (!hash)
+		hash = 1;
+
+	hb =&__pv_lock_hash[hash_align(hash)];
+	for (;;) {
+		for (end = hb + PV_HB_PER_LINE; hb<  end; hb++) {
+			struct qspinlock *l = READ_ONCE(hb->lock);
+
+			/*
+			 * If we hit an unused bucket, there is no match.
+			 */
+			if (!l)
+				goto done;

After more careful reading, I think the assumption that the presence of an unused bucket means there is no match is not true. Consider the scenario:

1. cpu 0 puts lock1 into hb[0]
2. cpu 1 puts lock2 into hb[1]
3. cpu 2 clears hb[0]
4. cpu 3 looks for lock2 and doesn't find it

I was thinking about putting some USED flag in the buckets, but then we will eventually fill them all up as used. If we put the entries into a hashed linked list, we have to deal with the complicated synchronization issues with link list update.

At this point, I am thinking using back your previous idea of passing the queue head information down the queue. I am now convinced that the unlock call site patching should work. So I will incorporate that in my next update.

Please let me know if you think my reasoning is not correct.

Thanks,
Longman

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




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux