IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The current way of using various reader, writer and waiting biases
in the rwsem code are confusing and hard to understand. I have to
reread the rwsem count guide in the rwsem-xadd.c file from time to
time to remind myself how this whole thing works. It also makes the
rwsem code harder to be optimized.
To make rwsem more sane, a new locking scheme similar to the one in
qrwlock is now being used. The atomic long count has the following
bit definitions:
Bit 0 - writer locked bit
Bit 1 - waiters present bit
Bits 2-7 - reserved for future extension
Bits 8-X - reader count (24/56 bits)
The cmpxchg instruction is now used to acquire the write lock. The read
lock is still acquired with xadd instruction, so there is no change here.
This scheme will allow up to 16M/64P active readers which should be
more than enough. We can always use some more reserved bits if necessary.
With that change, we can deterministically know if a rwsem has been
write-locked. Looking at the count alone, however, one cannot determine
for certain if a rwsem is owned by readers or not as the readers that
set the reader count bits may be in the process of backing out. So we
still need the reader-owned bit in the owner field to be sure.
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) of the benchmark on a 8-socket 120-core
IvyBridge-EX system before and after the patch were as follows:
Before Patch After Patch
# of Threads wlock rlock wlock rlock
------------ ----- ----- ----- -----
1 30,659 31,341 31,055 31,283
2 8,909 16,457 9,884 17,659
4 9,028 15,823 8,933 20,233
8 8,410 14,212 7,230 17,140
16 8,217 25,240 7,479 24,607
The locking rates of the benchmark on a Power8 system were as follows:
Before Patch After Patch
# of Threads wlock rlock wlock rlock
------------ ----- ----- ----- -----
1 12,963 13,647 13,275 13,601
2 7,570 11,569 7,902 10,829
4 5,232 5,516 5,466 5,435
8 5,233 3,386 5,467 3,168
The locking rates of the benchmark on a 2-socket ARM64 system were
as follows:
Before Patch After Patch
# of Threads wlock rlock wlock rlock
------------ ----- ----- ----- -----
1 21,495 21,046 21,524 21,074
2 5,293 10,502 5,333 10,504
4 5,325 11,463 5,358 11,631
8 5,391 11,712 5,470 11,680
The performance are roughly the same before and after the patch. There
are run-to-run variations in performance. Runs with higher variances
usually have higher throughput.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-4-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
64489e7800