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/
