2019-05-27 14:55:01 +08:00
|
|
|
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifndef __ASM_SPINLOCK_H
|
|
|
|
|
#define __ASM_SPINLOCK_H
|
2005-12-17 05:43:46 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifdef __KERNEL__
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
powerpc/64s: Implement queued spinlocks and rwlocks
These have shown significantly improved performance and fairness when
spinlock contention is moderate to high on very large systems.
With this series including subsequent patches, on a 16 socket 1536
thread POWER9, a stress test such as same-file open/close from all
CPUs gets big speedups, 11620op/s aggregate with simple spinlocks vs
384158op/s (33x faster), where the difference in throughput between
the fastest and slowest thread goes from 7x to 1.4x.
Thanks to the fast path being identical in terms of atomics and
barriers (after a subsequent optimisation patch), single threaded
performance is not changed (no measurable difference).
On smaller systems, performance and fairness seems to be generally
improved. Using dbench on tmpfs as a test (that starts to run into
kernel spinlock contention), a 2-socket OpenPOWER POWER9 system was
tested with bare metal and KVM guest configurations. Results can be
found here:
https://github.com/linuxppc/issues/issues/305#issuecomment-663487453
Observations are:
- Queued spinlocks are equal when contention is insignificant, as
expected and as measured with microbenchmarks.
- When there is contention, on bare metal queued spinlocks have better
throughput and max latency at all points.
- When virtualised, queued spinlocks are slightly worse approaching
peak throughput, but significantly better throughput and max latency
at all points beyond peak, until queued spinlock maximum latency
rises when clients are 2x vCPUs.
The regressions haven't been analysed very well yet, there are a lot
of things that can be tuned, particularly the paravirtualised locking,
but the numbers already look like a good net win even on relatively
small systems.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200724131423.1362108-4-npiggin@gmail.com
2020-07-24 21:14:20 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
|
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/qspinlock.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/qrwlock.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#else
|
2020-07-24 21:14:19 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <asm/simple_spinlock.h>
|
powerpc/64s: Implement queued spinlocks and rwlocks
These have shown significantly improved performance and fairness when
spinlock contention is moderate to high on very large systems.
With this series including subsequent patches, on a 16 socket 1536
thread POWER9, a stress test such as same-file open/close from all
CPUs gets big speedups, 11620op/s aggregate with simple spinlocks vs
384158op/s (33x faster), where the difference in throughput between
the fastest and slowest thread goes from 7x to 1.4x.
Thanks to the fast path being identical in terms of atomics and
barriers (after a subsequent optimisation patch), single threaded
performance is not changed (no measurable difference).
On smaller systems, performance and fairness seems to be generally
improved. Using dbench on tmpfs as a test (that starts to run into
kernel spinlock contention), a 2-socket OpenPOWER POWER9 system was
tested with bare metal and KVM guest configurations. Results can be
found here:
https://github.com/linuxppc/issues/issues/305#issuecomment-663487453
Observations are:
- Queued spinlocks are equal when contention is insignificant, as
expected and as measured with microbenchmarks.
- When there is contention, on bare metal queued spinlocks have better
throughput and max latency at all points.
- When virtualised, queued spinlocks are slightly worse approaching
peak throughput, but significantly better throughput and max latency
at all points beyond peak, until queued spinlock maximum latency
rises when clients are 2x vCPUs.
The regressions haven't been analysed very well yet, there are a lot
of things that can be tuned, particularly the paravirtualised locking,
but the numbers already look like a good net win even on relatively
small systems.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200724131423.1362108-4-npiggin@gmail.com
2020-07-24 21:14:20 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
locking: Introduce smp_mb__after_spinlock()
Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to
spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple
change, we cannot make it provide more.
The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't
itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over
it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB
insufficient (pointed out by Alan).
Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, both of
which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb().
At the same time, we can get a much stronger construct if we place
that same barrier _inside_ the spin_lock(). In that case we upgrade
the RCpc spinlock to an RCsc. That would make all schedule() calls
fully transitive against one another.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-09-05 17:37:53 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-07-24 21:14:21 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifndef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void pv_spinlocks_init(void) { }
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-12-17 05:43:46 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
|