Ingo, any chance of picking this up? Thanks! On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:13 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bu...@hp.com> > > Upon entering the slowpath, we immediately attempt to acquire the lock > by checking if it is already unlocked. If we are lucky enough that this > is the case, then we don't need to deal with any waiter related logic. > > Furthermore any checks for an empty wait_list are unnecessary as we > already know that count is non-negative and hence no one is waiting for > the lock. > > Move the count check and xchg calls to be done before any waiters are > setup - including waiter debugging. Upon failure to acquire the lock, > the xchg sets the counter to 0, instead of -1 as it was originally. > This can be done here since we set it back to -1 right at the beginning > of the loop so other waiters are woken up when the lock is released. > > When tested on a 8-socket (80 core) system against a vanilla 3.10-rc1 > kernel, this patch provides some small performance benefits (+2-6%). > While it could be considered in the noise level, the average percentages > were stable across multiple runs and no performance regressions were seen. > Two big winners, for small amounts of users (10-100), were the short and > compute workloads had a +19.36% and +%15.76% in jobs per minute. > > Also change some break statements to 'goto slowpath', which IMO makes a > little more intuitive to read. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bu...@hp.com> > --- > v1->v2: Rebase on -tip, dealing with the new W/W mutexes. > > kernel/mutex.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/mutex.c b/kernel/mutex.c > index e581ada..61cce1f 100644 > --- a/kernel/mutex.c > +++ b/kernel/mutex.c > @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, > unsigned int subclass, > * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done. > */ > if (ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx)) > - break; > + goto slowpath; > } > > /* > @@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, > unsigned int subclass, > owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner); > if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner)) { > mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node); > - break; > + goto slowpath; > } > > if ((atomic_read(&lock->count) == 1) && > @@ -486,8 +486,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, > unsigned int subclass, > > mutex_set_owner(lock); > mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node); > - preempt_enable(); > - return 0; > + goto done; > } > mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node); > > @@ -498,7 +497,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, > unsigned int subclass, > * the owner complete. > */ > if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task))) > - break; > + goto slowpath; > > /* > * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces > @@ -512,6 +511,10 @@ slowpath: > #endif > spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); > > + /* once more, can we acquire the lock? */ > + if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, 0) == 1)) > + goto skip_wait; > + > debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter); > debug_mutex_add_waiter(lock, &waiter, task_thread_info(task)); > > @@ -519,9 +522,6 @@ slowpath: > list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &lock->wait_list); > waiter.task = task; > > - if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1)) > - goto done; > - > lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip); > > for (;;) { > @@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ slowpath: > * other waiters: > */ > if (MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(lock) && > - (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1)) > + (atomic_xchg(&lock->count, -1) == 1)) > break; > > /* > @@ -560,24 +560,25 @@ slowpath: > schedule_preempt_disabled(); > spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); > } > + mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, current_thread_info()); > + /* set it to 0 if there are no waiters left: */ > + if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list))) > + atomic_set(&lock->count, 0); > + debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter); > > -done: > +skip_wait: > + /* got the lock - cleanup and rejoice! */ > lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip); > - /* got the lock - rejoice! */ > - mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, current_thread_info()); > mutex_set_owner(lock); > > if (!__builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx == NULL)) { > - struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, > - struct ww_mutex, > - base); > + struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base); > struct mutex_waiter *cur; > > /* > * This branch gets optimized out for the common case, > * and is only important for ww_mutex_lock. > */ > - > ww_mutex_lock_acquired(ww, ww_ctx); > ww->ctx = ww_ctx; > > @@ -591,15 +592,9 @@ done: > } > } > > - /* set it to 0 if there are no waiters left: */ > - if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list))) > - atomic_set(&lock->count, 0); > - > spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); > - > - debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter); > +done: > preempt_enable(); > - > return 0; > > err:
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/