On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:12:19 +0800 Ming Lei <tom.leim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> >> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> >> +++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c
> >> @@ -75,19 +75,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_set);
> >> void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount, s32
> >> batch)
> >> {
> >> s64 count;
> >> + unsigned long flags;
> >>
> >> - preempt_disable();
> >> + raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> >> count = __this_cpu_read(*fbc->counters) + amount;
> >> if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) {
> >> - unsigned long flags;
> >> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
> >> + raw_spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
> >> fbc->count += count;
> >> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> >> + raw_spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
> >> __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);
> >> } else {
> >> __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, count);
> >> }
> >> - preempt_enable();
> >> + raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_add);
> >
> > Can this be made more efficient?
> >
> > The this_cpu_foo() documentation is fairly dreadful, but way down at
> > the end of Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt we find "this_cpu ops are
> > interrupt safe". So I think this is a more efficient fix:
> >
> > --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~a
> > +++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> > @@ -82,10 +82,10 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_
> > unsigned long flags;
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
> > fbc->count += count;
> > + __this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count);
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> > - __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);
> > } else {
> > - __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, count);
> > + this_cpu_add(*fbc->counters, amount);
> > }
> > preempt_enable();
> > }
> >
> > It avoids the local_irq_disable() in the common case, when the CPU
> > supports efficient this_cpu_add(). It will in rare race situations
> > permit the cpu-local counter to exceed `batch', but that should be
> > harmless.
>
> I am wondering if the above patch is more efficient, because:
>
> - raw_local_irq_save()/raw_local_irq_restore() should be cheaper
> than preempt_enable() in theory
Don't think so - local_irq_disable() requires quite some internal
synchronization in the CPU and is expensive. preempt_disable() is just
an add+barrier, minus the add if the kernel is non-preemptable.
> - except for x86 and s390, other ARCHs have not their own implementation
> of this_cpu_foo(), and the generic one just disables local interrupt
> when operating the percpu variable.
Yup. But other CPUs should and will optimise their this_cpu
implementations over time.
--
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/
