On 07/15/2015 06:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:+static void pv_kick_node(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) { struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;+ if (xchg(&pn->state, vcpu_running) == vcpu_running) + return; + /* + * Kicking the next node at lock time can actually be a bit faster + * than doing it at unlock time because the critical section time + * overlaps with the wakeup latency of the next node. However, if the + * VM is too overcommmitted, it can happen that we need to kick the + * CPU again at unlock time (double-kick). To avoid that and also to + * fully utilize the kick-ahead functionality at unlock time, + * the kicking will be deferred under either one of the following + * 2 conditions: * + * 1) The VM guest has too few vCPUs that kick-ahead is not even + * enabled. In this case, the chance of double-kick will be + * higher. + * 2) The node after the next one is also in the halted state. * + * In this case, the hashed flag is set to indicate that hashed + * table has been filled and _Q_SLOW_VAL is set. */ - if (xchg(&pn->state, vcpu_running) == vcpu_halted) { - pvstat_inc(pvstat_lock_kick); - pv_kick(pn->cpu); + if ((!pv_kick_ahead || pv_get_kick_node(pn, 1))&& + (xchg(&pn->hashed, 1) == 0)) { + struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock; + + /* + * As this is the same vCPU that will check the _Q_SLOW_VAL + * value and the hash table later on at unlock time, no atomic + * instruction is needed. + */ + WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL); + (void)pv_hash(lock, pn); + return; } + + /* + * Kicking the vCPU even if it is not really halted is safe. + */ + pvstat_inc(pvstat_lock_kick); + pv_kick(pn->cpu); } /* @@ -513,6 +545,13 @@ static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) cpu_relax(); } + if (!lp&& (xchg(&pn->hashed, 1) == 1)) + /* + * The hashed table& _Q_SLOW_VAL had been filled + * by the lock holder. + */ + lp = (struct qspinlock **)-1; + if (!lp) { /* ONCE */ lp = pv_hash(lock, pn); /**groan*, so you complained the previous version of this patch was too complex, but let me say I vastly preferred it to this one :/
I said it was complex as maintaining a tri-state variable needed more thought than 2 bi-state variables. I can revert it back to the tri-state variable as doing an unconditional kick in unlock simplifies the code at pv_wait_head().
Cheers, Longman -- 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/
