mirror of
				https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git
				synced 2025-11-04 02:30:34 +02:00 
			
		
		
		
	An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs has a heavy overload in osq_lock(). This is because if vCPU-A holds the osq lock and yields out, vCPU-B ends up waiting for per_cpu node->locked to be set. IOW, vCPU-B waits for vCPU-A to run and unlock the osq lock. Use the new vcpu_is_preempted(cpu) interface to detect if a vCPU is currently running or not, and break out of the spin-loop if so. test case: $ perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g 400 -p && perf report before patch: 18.09% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] osq_lock 12.28% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner 5.27% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock 3.89% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] wait_consider_task 3.64% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_write_lock_irq 3.41% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.is 2.49% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call after patch: 20.68% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner 8.45% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock 4.12% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call 3.01% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call_common 2.83% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] copypage_power7 2.64% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner 2.00% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] osq_lock Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Tested-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Cc: David.Laight@ACULAB.COM Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: bsingharora@gmail.com Cc: dave@stgolabs.net Cc: kernellwp@gmail.com Cc: konrad.wilk@oracle.com Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: paulus@samba.org Cc: rkrcmar@redhat.com Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: will.deacon@arm.com Cc: xen-devel-request@lists.xenproject.org Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1478077718-37424-3-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com [ Translated to English. ] Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
		
			
				
	
	
		
			217 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			5.3 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			C
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			217 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			5.3 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			C
		
	
	
	
	
	
#include <linux/percpu.h>
 | 
						|
#include <linux/sched.h>
 | 
						|
#include <linux/osq_lock.h>
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
/*
 | 
						|
 * An MCS like lock especially tailored for optimistic spinning for sleeping
 | 
						|
 * lock implementations (mutex, rwsem, etc).
 | 
						|
 *
 | 
						|
 * Using a single mcs node per CPU is safe because sleeping locks should not be
 | 
						|
 * called from interrupt context and we have preemption disabled while
 | 
						|
 * spinning.
 | 
						|
 */
 | 
						|
static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node, osq_node);
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
/*
 | 
						|
 * We use the value 0 to represent "no CPU", thus the encoded value
 | 
						|
 * will be the CPU number incremented by 1.
 | 
						|
 */
 | 
						|
static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
 | 
						|
{
 | 
						|
	return cpu_nr + 1;
 | 
						|
}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
static inline int node_cpu(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
 | 
						|
{
 | 
						|
	return node->cpu - 1;
 | 
						|
}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
 | 
						|
{
 | 
						|
	int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, cpu_nr);
 | 
						|
}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
/*
 | 
						|
 * Get a stable @node->next pointer, either for unlock() or unqueue() purposes.
 | 
						|
 * Can return NULL in case we were the last queued and we updated @lock instead.
 | 
						|
 */
 | 
						|
static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *
 | 
						|
osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
 | 
						|
	      struct optimistic_spin_node *node,
 | 
						|
	      struct optimistic_spin_node *prev)
 | 
						|
{
 | 
						|
	struct optimistic_spin_node *next = NULL;
 | 
						|
	int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
 | 
						|
	int old;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * If there is a prev node in queue, then the 'old' value will be
 | 
						|
	 * the prev node's CPU #, else it's set to OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL since if
 | 
						|
	 * we're currently last in queue, then the queue will then become empty.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
	old = prev ? prev->cpu : OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	for (;;) {
 | 
						|
		if (atomic_read(&lock->tail) == curr &&
 | 
						|
		    atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->tail, curr, old) == curr) {
 | 
						|
			/*
 | 
						|
			 * We were the last queued, we moved @lock back. @prev
 | 
						|
			 * will now observe @lock and will complete its
 | 
						|
			 * unlock()/unqueue().
 | 
						|
			 */
 | 
						|
			break;
 | 
						|
		}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
		/*
 | 
						|
		 * We must xchg() the @node->next value, because if we were to
 | 
						|
		 * leave it in, a concurrent unlock()/unqueue() from
 | 
						|
		 * @node->next might complete Step-A and think its @prev is
 | 
						|
		 * still valid.
 | 
						|
		 *
 | 
						|
		 * If the concurrent unlock()/unqueue() wins the race, we'll
 | 
						|
		 * wait for either @lock to point to us, through its Step-B, or
 | 
						|
		 * wait for a new @node->next from its Step-C.
 | 
						|
		 */
 | 
						|
		if (node->next) {
 | 
						|
			next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
 | 
						|
			if (next)
 | 
						|
				break;
 | 
						|
		}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
		cpu_relax();
 | 
						|
	}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	return next;
 | 
						|
}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 | 
						|
{
 | 
						|
	struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
 | 
						|
	struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
 | 
						|
	int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
 | 
						|
	int old;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	node->locked = 0;
 | 
						|
	node->next = NULL;
 | 
						|
	node->cpu = curr;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
 | 
						|
	 * unlock() uncontended, or fastpath) and RELEASE (to publish
 | 
						|
	 * the node fields we just initialised) semantics when updating
 | 
						|
	 * the lock tail.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
	old = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr);
 | 
						|
	if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
 | 
						|
		return true;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	prev = decode_cpu(old);
 | 
						|
	node->prev = prev;
 | 
						|
	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * Normally @prev is untouchable after the above store; because at that
 | 
						|
	 * moment unlock can proceed and wipe the node element from stack.
 | 
						|
	 *
 | 
						|
	 * However, since our nodes are static per-cpu storage, we're
 | 
						|
	 * guaranteed their existence -- this allows us to apply
 | 
						|
	 * cmpxchg in an attempt to undo our queueing.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) {
 | 
						|
		/*
 | 
						|
		 * If we need to reschedule bail... so we can block.
 | 
						|
		 * Use vcpu_is_preempted() to avoid waiting for a preempted
 | 
						|
		 * lock holder:
 | 
						|
		 */
 | 
						|
		if (need_resched() || vcpu_is_preempted(node_cpu(node->prev)))
 | 
						|
			goto unqueue;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
		cpu_relax();
 | 
						|
	}
 | 
						|
	return true;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
unqueue:
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * Step - A  -- stabilize @prev
 | 
						|
	 *
 | 
						|
	 * Undo our @prev->next assignment; this will make @prev's
 | 
						|
	 * unlock()/unqueue() wait for a next pointer since @lock points to us
 | 
						|
	 * (or later).
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	for (;;) {
 | 
						|
		if (prev->next == node &&
 | 
						|
		    cmpxchg(&prev->next, node, NULL) == node)
 | 
						|
			break;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
		/*
 | 
						|
		 * We can only fail the cmpxchg() racing against an unlock(),
 | 
						|
		 * in which case we should observe @node->locked becomming
 | 
						|
		 * true.
 | 
						|
		 */
 | 
						|
		if (smp_load_acquire(&node->locked))
 | 
						|
			return true;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
		cpu_relax();
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
		/*
 | 
						|
		 * Or we race against a concurrent unqueue()'s step-B, in which
 | 
						|
		 * case its step-C will write us a new @node->prev pointer.
 | 
						|
		 */
 | 
						|
		prev = READ_ONCE(node->prev);
 | 
						|
	}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * Step - B -- stabilize @next
 | 
						|
	 *
 | 
						|
	 * Similar to unlock(), wait for @node->next or move @lock from @node
 | 
						|
	 * back to @prev.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, prev);
 | 
						|
	if (!next)
 | 
						|
		return false;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * Step - C -- unlink
 | 
						|
	 *
 | 
						|
	 * @prev is stable because its still waiting for a new @prev->next
 | 
						|
	 * pointer, @next is stable because our @node->next pointer is NULL and
 | 
						|
	 * it will wait in Step-A.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
 | 
						|
	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, next);
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	return false;
 | 
						|
}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 | 
						|
{
 | 
						|
	struct optimistic_spin_node *node, *next;
 | 
						|
	int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * Fast path for the uncontended case.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
	if (likely(atomic_cmpxchg_release(&lock->tail, curr,
 | 
						|
					  OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL) == curr))
 | 
						|
		return;
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	/*
 | 
						|
	 * Second most likely case.
 | 
						|
	 */
 | 
						|
	node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
 | 
						|
	next = xchg(&node->next, NULL);
 | 
						|
	if (next) {
 | 
						|
		WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
 | 
						|
		return;
 | 
						|
	}
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	next = osq_wait_next(lock, node, NULL);
 | 
						|
	if (next)
 | 
						|
		WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
 | 
						|
}
 |