lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/9] Remove spin_unlock_wait()

* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 10:35:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > >
> > > On 07/07/2017 10:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's another, probably just as significant advantage: queued_spin_unlock_wait()
> > > > is 'read-only', while spin_lock()+spin_unlock() dirties the lock cache line. On
> > > > any bigger system this should make a very measurable difference - if
> > > > spin_unlock_wait() is ever used in a performance critical code path.
> > > At least for ipc/sem:
> > > Dirtying the cacheline (in the slow path) allows to remove a smp_mb() in the
> > > hot path.
> > > So for sem_lock(), I either need a primitive that dirties the cacheline or
> > > sem_lock() must continue to use spin_lock()/spin_unlock().
> >
> > Technically you could use spin_trylock()+spin_unlock() and avoid the lock acquire
> > spinning on spin_unlock() and get very close to the slow path performance of a
> > pure cacheline-dirtying behavior.
> >
> > But adding something like spin_barrier(), which purely dirties the lock cacheline,
> > would be even faster, right?
>
> Interestingly enough, the arm64 and powerpc implementations of
> spin_unlock_wait() were very close to what it sounds like you are
> describing.

So could we perhaps solve all our problems by defining the generic version thusly:

void spin_unlock_wait(spinlock_t *lock)
{
if (spin_trylock(lock))
spin_unlock(lock);
}

... and perhaps rename it to spin_barrier() [or whatever proper name there would
be]?

Architectures can still optimize it, to remove the small window where the lock is
held locally - as long as the ordering is at least as strong as the generic
version.

This would have various advantages:

- semantics are well-defined

- the generic implementation is already pretty well optimized (no spinning)

- it would make it usable for the IPC performance optimization

- architectures could still optimize it to eliminate the window where the lock is
held locally - if there's such instructions available.

Was this proposed before, or am I missing something?

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-08 14:31    [W:0.101 / U:23.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site