Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13319-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <346c40b5-686f-461e-a1e3-9f255418efb2@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:08:03 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 4/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise per-cpu data
 accesses.
Content-Language: en-US
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
 "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 "'peterz@infradead.org'" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "'mingo@redhat.com'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
 "'will@kernel.org'" <will@kernel.org>,
 "'boqun.feng@gmail.com'" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
 'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 "'xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com'" <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 "'virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org'"
 <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
 'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@huawei.com>
References: <73a4b31c9c874081baabad9e5f2e5204@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <bddb6b00434d4492abca4725c10f8d5a@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <bddb6b00434d4492abca4725c10f8d5a@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 12/29/23 15:57, David Laight wrote:
> this_cpu_ptr() is rather more expensive than raw_cpu_read() since
> the latter can use an 'offset from register' (%gs for x86-84).
>
> Add a 'self' field to 'struct optimistic_spin_node' that can be
> read with raw_cpu_read(), initialise on first call.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
> ---
>   kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> index 9bb3a077ba92..b60b0add0161 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
>    */
>   
>   struct optimistic_spin_node {
> -	struct optimistic_spin_node *next, *prev;
> +	struct optimistic_spin_node *self, *next, *prev;
>   	int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
>   	int cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
>   };
> @@ -93,12 +93,16 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
>   
>   bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>   {
> -	struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> +	struct optimistic_spin_node *node = raw_cpu_read(osq_node.self);

My gcc 11 compiler produces the following x86-64 code:

92        struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
    0x0000000000000029 <+25>:    mov    %rcx,%rdx
    0x000000000000002c <+28>:    add %gs:0x0(%rip),%rdx        # 0x34 
<osq_lock+36>

Which looks pretty optimized for me. Maybe older compiler may generate 
more complex code. However, I do have some doubt as to the benefit of 
this patch at the expense of making the code a bit more complex.

Cheers,
Longman