On 12/29/23 17:11, David Laight wrote:
osq_lock() starts by setting node->next to NULL and node->locked to 0.
Careful analysis shows that node->next is always NULL on entry.

node->locked is set non-zero by another cpu to force a wakeup.
This can only happen after the 'prev->next = node' assignment,
so locked can be set to zero just before that (along with the assignment
to node->prev).

Only initialise node->cpu once, after that use its value instead
of smp_processor_id() - which is probably a real function call.

Should reduce cache-line bouncing a little.

Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com>
---

Re-send without the 'RE:' on the subject line.
  kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 13 ++++++-------
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index d414eef4bec6..55f5db896c02 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
              struct optimistic_spin_node *prev)
  {
        struct optimistic_spin_node *next = NULL;
-       int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
+       int curr = node->cpu;
        int old;
/*
@@ -98,12 +98,10 @@ 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;

I have some concern about not clearing node->next at the beginning. I know that next is supposed to be cleared at the end. I do have some worry that there may exist a race condition that leaves next not cleared before it is used again. So you either have to prove that such a race does not exist, or initializing it to NULL at the beginning like it is today.

Cheers,
Longman

-       node->cpu = curr;
+       if (unlikely(node->cpu == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL))
+               node->cpu = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
/*
         * We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
@@ -111,12 +109,13 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
         * the node fields we just initialised) semantics when updating
         * the lock tail.
         */
-       old = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr);
+       old = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, node->cpu);
        if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
                return true;
prev = decode_cpu(old);
        node->prev = prev;
+       node->locked = 0;
/*
         * osq_lock()                   unqueue
@@ -214,7 +213,7 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
  void osq_unlock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
  {
        struct optimistic_spin_node *node, *next;
-       int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
+       int curr = raw_cpu_read(osq_node.cpu);
/*
         * Fast path for the uncontended case.


Reply via email to