Re: [PATCH next 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check.

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

 




On 12/29/23 15:58, David Laight wrote:
The vcpu_is_preempted() test stops osq_lock() spinning if a virtual
   cpu is no longer running.
Although patched out for bare-metal the code still needs the cpu number.
Reading this from 'prev->cpu' is a pretty much guaranteed have a cache miss
when osq_unlock() is waking up the next cpu.

Instead save 'prev->cpu' in 'node->prev_cpu' and use that value instead.
Update in the osq_lock() 'unqueue' path when 'node->prev' is changed.

This is simpler than checking for 'node->prev' changing and caching
'prev->cpu'.

Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 14 ++++++--------
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index b60b0add0161..89be63627434 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -14,8 +14,9 @@
struct optimistic_spin_node {
  	struct optimistic_spin_node *self, *next, *prev;
-	int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
-	int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
+	int locked;    /* 1 if lock acquired */
+	int cpu;       /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
+	int prev_cpu;  /* actual CPU # for vpcu_is_preempted() */
  };
static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node, osq_node);
@@ -29,11 +30,6 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
  	return cpu_nr + 1;
  }
-static inline int node_cpu(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
-{
-	return node->cpu - 1;
-}
-
  static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
  {
  	int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
@@ -114,6 +110,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
  	if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
  		return true;
+ node->prev_cpu = old - 1;
  	prev = decode_cpu(old);
  	node->prev = prev;
  	node->locked = 0;
@@ -148,7 +145,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
  	 * polling, be careful.
  	 */
  	if (smp_cond_load_relaxed(&node->locked, VAL || need_resched() ||
-				  vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev))))
+				  vcpu_is_preempted(node->prev_cpu)))
  		return true;
/* unqueue */
@@ -205,6 +202,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
  	 * it will wait in Step-A.
  	 */
+ WRITE_ONCE(next->prev_cpu, prev->cpu - 1);
  	WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
  	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, next);
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>






[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