[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v15 09/15] pvqspinlock: Implement simple paravirt support for the qspinlock
- To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:41:44 -0400
- Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Daniel J Blueman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@xxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@xxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 21:42:09 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 04/09/2015 02:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 10:55:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
+#ifndef _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH
+#error "do not include this file"
+#endif
+
+/*
+ * Implement paravirt qspinlocks; the general idea is to halt the vcpus instead
+ * of spinning them.
+ *
+ * This relies on the architecture to provide two paravirt hypercalls:
+ *
+ * pv_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val) -- suspends the vcpu if *ptr == val
+ * pv_kick(cpu) -- wakes a suspended vcpu
+ *
+ * Using these we implement __pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath() and
+ * __pv_queue_spin_unlock() to replace native_queue_spin_lock_slowpath() and
+ * native_queue_spin_unlock().
+ */
+
+#define _Q_SLOW_VAL (3U<< _Q_LOCKED_OFFSET)
+
+enum vcpu_state {
+ vcpu_running = 0,
+ vcpu_halted,
+};
+
+struct pv_node {
+ struct mcs_spinlock mcs;
+ struct mcs_spinlock __res[3];
+
+ int cpu;
+ u8 state;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Hash table using open addressing with an LFSR probe sequence.
+ *
+ * Since we should not be holding locks from NMI context (very rare indeed) the
+ * max load factor is 0.75, which is around the point where open addressing
+ * breaks down.
+ *
+ * Instead of probing just the immediate bucket we probe all buckets in the
+ * same cacheline.
+ *
+ * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#Open_addressing
+ *
+ * Dynamically allocate a hash table big enough to hold at least 4X the
+ * number of possible cpus in the system. Allocation is done on page
+ * granularity. So the minimum number of hash buckets should be at least
+ * 256 to fully utilize a 4k page.
+ */
+#define LFSR_MIN_BITS 8
+#define LFSR_MAX_BITS (2 + NR_CPUS_BITS)
+#if LFSR_MAX_BITS< LFSR_MIN_BITS
+#undef LFSR_MAX_BITS
+#define LFSR_MAX_BITS LFSR_MIN_BITS
+#endif
+
+struct pv_hash_bucket {
+ struct qspinlock *lock;
+ struct pv_node *node;
+};
+#define PV_HB_PER_LINE (SMP_CACHE_BYTES / sizeof(struct pv_hash_bucket))
+#define HB_RESERVED ((struct qspinlock *)1)
This is unused.
You are right, I will remove that.
+
+static struct pv_hash_bucket *pv_lock_hash;
+static unsigned int pv_lock_hash_bits __read_mostly;
static unsigned int pv_taps __read_mostly;
It will depend on whether we keep the lfsr code or not.
+
+#include<linux/hash.h>
+#include<linux/lfsr.h>
+#include<linux/bootmem.h>
+
+/*
+ * Allocate memory for the PV qspinlock hash buckets
+ *
+ * This function should be called from the paravirt spinlock initialization
+ * routine.
+ */
+void __init __pv_init_lock_hash(void)
+{
+ int pv_hash_size = 4 * num_possible_cpus();
+
+ if (pv_hash_size< (1U<< LFSR_MIN_BITS))
+ pv_hash_size = (1U<< LFSR_MIN_BITS);
+ /*
+ * Allocate space from bootmem which should be page-size aligned
+ * and hence cacheline aligned.
+ */
+ pv_lock_hash = alloc_large_system_hash("PV qspinlock",
+ sizeof(struct pv_hash_bucket),
+ pv_hash_size, 0, HASH_EARLY,
+ &pv_lock_hash_bits, NULL,
+ pv_hash_size, pv_hash_size);
pv_taps = lfsr_taps(pv_lock_hash_bits);
I don't understand what you meant here.
+}
+
+static inline u32 hash_align(u32 hash)
+{
+ return hash& ~(PV_HB_PER_LINE - 1);
+}
+
+static struct qspinlock **pv_hash(struct qspinlock *lock, struct pv_node *node)
+{
+ unsigned long init_hash, hash = hash_ptr(lock, pv_lock_hash_bits);
+ struct pv_hash_bucket *hb, *end;
+
+ if (!hash)
+ hash = 1;
+
+ init_hash = hash;
+ hb =&pv_lock_hash[hash_align(hash)];
+ for (;;) {
+ for (end = hb + PV_HB_PER_LINE; hb< end; hb++) {
+ if (!cmpxchg(&hb->lock, NULL, lock)) {
+ WRITE_ONCE(hb->node, node);
+ /*
+ * We haven't set the _Q_SLOW_VAL yet. So
+ * the order of writing doesn't matter.
+ */
+ smp_wmb(); /* matches rmb from pv_hash_find */
This doesn't make sense. Both sites do ->lock first and ->node second.
No amount of ordering can 'fix' that.
I think we can safely remove this wmb and the rmb below, because the
required ordering is already provided by setting/observing l->locked ==
SLOW.
Right, I was over-cautious here. Will remove that.
+ goto done;
+ }
+ }
+
+ hash = lfsr(hash, pv_lock_hash_bits, 0);
Since pv_lock_hash_bits is a variable, you end up running through that
massive if() forest to find the corresponding tap every single time. It
cannot compile-time optimize it.
The minimum bits size is now 8. So unless the system has more than 64
vCPUs, it will get the right value in the first if statement.
Hence:
hash = lfsr(hash, pv_taps);
(I don't get the bits argument to the lfsr).
In any case, like I said before, I think we should try a linear probe
sequence first, the lfsr was over engineering from my side.
As I said before, I am fine with removing the lfsr() code.
+ hb =&pv_lock_hash[hash_align(hash)];
+ BUG_ON(hash == init_hash);
+ }
+
+done:
+ return&hb->lock;
+}
+
+static struct pv_node *pv_hash_find(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+ unsigned long init_hash, hash = hash_ptr(lock, pv_lock_hash_bits);
+ struct pv_hash_bucket *hb, *end;
+ struct pv_node *node = NULL;
+
+ if (!hash)
+ hash = 1;
+
+ init_hash = hash;
+ hb =&pv_lock_hash[hash_align(hash)];
+ for (;;) {
+ for (end = hb + PV_HB_PER_LINE; hb< end; hb++) {
+ struct qspinlock *l = READ_ONCE(hb->lock);
+
+ if (l == lock) {
+ smp_rmb(); /* matches wmb from pv_hash() */
per the above this can go, IF we observe SLOW we must also observe a
consistent bucket.
Will remove that.
+ node = READ_ONCE(hb->node);
+ goto done;
+ }
+ }
+
+ hash = lfsr(hash, pv_lock_hash_bits, 0);
idem the previous lfsr comment.
+ hb =&pv_lock_hash[hash_align(hash)];
+ BUG_ON(hash == init_hash);
+ }
+done:
+ /*
+ * Clear the hash bucket
+ */
+ WRITE_ONCE(hb->lock, NULL);
+ return node;
+}
+/*
+ * Wait for l->locked to become clear; halt the vcpu after a short spin.
+ * __pv_queue_spin_unlock() will wake us.
+ */
+static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+ struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+ struct qspinlock **lp = NULL;
+ struct pv_node *pn = (struct pv_node *)node;
+ int slow_set = false;
+ int loop;
+
+ for (;;) {
+ for (loop = SPIN_THRESHOLD; loop; loop--) {
+ if (!READ_ONCE(l->locked))
+ return;
+
+ cpu_relax();
+ }
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_halted);
+ if (!lp)
+ lp = pv_hash(lock, pn);
+ /*
+ * lp must be set before setting _Q_SLOW_VAL
+ *
+ * [S] lp = lock [RmW] l = l->locked = 0
+ * MB MB
+ * [S] l->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL [L] lp
+ *
+ * Matches the cmpxchg() in pv_queue_spin_unlock().
+ */
+ if (!slow_set&&
+ !cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, _Q_SLOW_VAL)) {
+ /*
+ * The lock is free and _Q_SLOW_VAL has never been
+ * set. Need to clear the hash bucket before getting
+ * the lock.
+ */
+ WRITE_ONCE(*lp, NULL);
+ return;
+ } else if (slow_set&& !READ_ONCE(l->locked))
+ return;
+ slow_set = true;
I'm somewhat puzzled by the slow_set thing; what is wrong with the thing
I had, namely:
if (!lp) {
lp = pv_hash(lock, pn);
/*
* comment
*/
lv = cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
if (lv != _Q_LOCKED_VAL) {
/* we're woken, unhash and return */
WRITE_ONCE(*lp, NULL);
return;
}
}
+
+ pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
If we get a spurious wakeup (due to device interrupts or random kick)
we'll loop around but ->locked will remain _Q_SLOW_VAL.
The purpose of the slow_set flag is not about the lock value. It is to
make sure that pv_hash_find() will always find a match. Consider the
following scenario:
cpu1 cpu2 cpu3
---- ---- ----
pv_wait
spurious wakeup
loop l->locked
read _Q_SLOW_VAL
pv_hash_find()
unlock
pv_hash() <- same entry
cmpxchg(&l->locked)
clear hash (?)
Here, the entry for cpu3 will be removed leading to panic when
pv_hash_find() can find the entry. So the hash entry can only be
removed if the other cpu has no chance to see _Q_SLOW_VAL.
+ }
+ /*
+ * Lock is unlocked now; the caller will acquire it without waiting.
+ * As with pv_wait_node() we rely on the caller to do a load-acquire
+ * for us.
+ */
+}
+
+/*
+ * To be used in stead of queue_spin_unlock() for paravirt locks. Wakes
+ * pv_wait_head() if appropriate.
+ */
+__visible void __pv_queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+ struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+ struct pv_node *node;
+
+ if (likely(cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0) == _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * The queue head has been halted. Need to locate it and wake it up.
+ */
+ node = pv_hash_find(lock);
+ smp_store_release(&l->locked, 0);
Ah yes, clever that.
+ /*
+ * At this point the memory pointed at by lock can be freed/reused,
+ * however we can still use the PV node to kick the CPU.
+ */
+ if (READ_ONCE(node->state) == vcpu_halted)
+ pv_kick(node->cpu);
+}
+PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__pv_queue_spin_unlock);
However I feel the PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK thing belongs in the x86
code.
That is why I originally put my version of the qspinlock_paravirt.h
header file under arch/x86/include/asm. Maybe we should move it back
there. Putting the thunk in arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c didn't work when you
consider that the Xen code also need that.
Cheers,
Longman
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
