On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:28:29AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> pool->lock is also going to be fairly badly contended in the worst case,
> and that can get real bad real fast... now that I think about it we
> probably want to avoid the __alloc_global_tag() double call just because
> of that, pool->lock is going to be quite a bit more contended than the
> waitlist lock just because fo the amount of work done under it.
On top of the two previous; I think we can reduce pool->lock contention
by not holding it while doing steal_tags().
By dropping pool->lock around steal_tags() we loose serialization over:
pool->cpus_have_tags is an atomic bitmask, and
pool->cpu_last_stolem, that's a heuristic anyway, so sod it.
We further loose the guarantee relied upon by percpu_ida_free(), so have
it also acquire the tags->lock, which should be a far less contended
resource.
Now everything modifying percpu_ida_cpu state holds
percpu_ida_cpu::lock, everything that modifies the actual percpu_ida
freelists holds percpu_ida::lock, and percpu_ida_cpu::lock nests inside
percpu_ida::lock.
The only annoying thing is that we're still holding IRQs over
steal_tags(), we should be able to make that a preempt_disable() without
too much effort, or very much cheat and drop even that and rely on the
percpu_ida_cpu::lock to serialize everything and just hope that we don't
migrate too often.
But that's for another patch.
---
--- a/lib/percpu_ida.c
+++ b/lib/percpu_ida.c
@@ -68,8 +68,6 @@ static inline void steal_tags(struct per
unsigned cpus_have_tags, cpu = pool->cpu_last_stolen;
struct percpu_ida_cpu *remote;
- lockdep_assert_held(&pool->lock);
-
for (cpus_have_tags = cpumask_weight(&pool->cpus_have_tags);
cpus_have_tags * pool->percpu_max_size > pool->nr_tags / 2;
cpus_have_tags--) {
@@ -141,18 +139,24 @@ static inline int alloc_global_tag(struc
min(pool->nr_free, pool->percpu_batch_size));
}
+ spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
+
if (!tags->nr_free)
steal_tags(pool, tags);
if (tags->nr_free) {
- tag = tags->freelist[--tags->nr_free];
+ spin_lock(&tags->lock);
if (tags->nr_free) {
- cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(),
- &pool->cpus_have_tags);
+ tag = tags->freelist[--tags->nr_free];
+ if (tags->nr_free) {
+ cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(),
+ &pool->cpus_have_tags);
+ }
}
+ spin_unlock(&tags->lock);
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
return tag;
}
@@ -238,12 +242,8 @@ void percpu_ida_free(struct percpu_ida *
if (nr_free == pool->percpu_max_size) {
spin_lock(&pool->lock);
+ spin_lock(&tags->lock);
- /*
- * Global lock held and irqs disabled, don't need percpu lock
- * because everybody accessing remote @tags will hold
- * pool->lock -- steal_tags().
- */
if (tags->nr_free == pool->percpu_max_size) {
move_tags(pool->freelist, &pool->nr_free,
tags->freelist, &tags->nr_free,
@@ -251,6 +251,8 @@ void percpu_ida_free(struct percpu_ida *
wake_up(&pool->wait);
}
+
+ spin_unlock(&tags->lock);
spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
}
--
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/
