Hi Alex,
On 2019/3/29 23:20, Alex Kogan wrote:
> In CNA, spinning threads are organized in two queues, a main queue for
> threads running on the same node as the current lock holder, and a
> secondary queue for threads running on other nodes. At the unlock time,
> the lock holder scans the main queue looking for a thread running on
> the same node. If found (call it thread T), all threads in the main queue
> between the current lock holder and T are moved to the end of the
> secondary queue, and the lock is passed to T. If such T is not found, the
> lock is passed to the first node in the secondary queue. Finally, if the
> secondary queue is empty, the lock is passed to the next thread in the
> main queue. For more details, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05600.
>
> Note that this variant of CNA may introduce starvation by continuously
> passing the lock to threads running on the same node. This issue
> will be addressed later in the series.
>
> Enabling CNA is controlled via a new configuration option
> (NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS), which is enabled by default if NUMA is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Kogan <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Steve Sistare <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 14 +++
> include/asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h | 13 +++
> kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 10 ++
> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 29 +++++-
> kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h | 173
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 236 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h
>
(SNIP)
> +
> +static __always_inline int get_node_index(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> +{
> + return decode_count(node->node_and_count++);
When nesting level is > 4, it won't return a index >= 4 here and the numa node
number
is changed by mistake. It will go into a wrong way instead of the following
branch.
/*
* 4 nodes are allocated based on the assumption that there will
* not be nested NMIs taking spinlocks. That may not be true in
* some architectures even though the chance of needing more than
* 4 nodes will still be extremely unlikely. When that happens,
* we fall back to spinning on the lock directly without using
* any MCS node. This is not the most elegant solution, but is
* simple enough.
*/
if (unlikely(idx >= MAX_NODES)) {
while (!queued_spin_trylock(lock))
cpu_relax();
goto release;
}
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline void release_mcs_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> +{
> + __this_cpu_dec(node->node_and_count);
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline void cna_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node, int
> cpuid,
> + u32 tail)
> +{
Thanks,
Wei
