From: Nicolai Hähnle Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:46:38 +0000 (+0100) Subject: locking/ww_mutex: Optimize ww-mutexes by yielding to other waiters from optimistic... X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c516df978df1471793aaa4809b390ecd40fa93c2;p=GitHub%2FLineageOS%2Fandroid_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git locking/ww_mutex: Optimize ww-mutexes by yielding to other waiters from optimistic spin Lock stealing is less beneficial for w/w mutexes since we may just end up backing off if we stole from a thread with an earlier acquire stamp that already holds another w/w mutex that we also need. So don't spin optimistically unless we are sure that there is no other waiter that might cause us to back off. Median timings taken of a contention-heavy GPU workload: Before: real 0m52.946s user 0m7.272s sys 1m55.964s After: real 0m53.086s user 0m7.360s sys 1m46.204s This particular workload still spends 20%-25% of CPU in mutex_spin_on_owner according to perf, but my attempts to further reduce this spinning based on various heuristics all lead to an increase in measured wall time despite the decrease in sys time. Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Chris Wilson Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Maarten Lankhorst Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1482346000-9927-11-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index 41b0406069e8..cd8598aa0426 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -371,6 +371,49 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx) } #ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER + +static inline +bool ww_mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, + struct mutex_waiter *waiter) +{ + struct ww_mutex *ww; + + ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base); + + /* + * If ww->ctx is set the contents are undefined, only + * by acquiring wait_lock there is a guarantee that + * they are not invalid when reading. + * + * As such, when deadlock detection needs to be + * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done. + * + * Check this in every inner iteration because we may + * be racing against another thread's ww_mutex_lock. + */ + if (ww_ctx->acquired > 0 && READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)) + return false; + + /* + * If we aren't on the wait list yet, cancel the spin + * if there are waiters. We want to avoid stealing the + * lock from a waiter with an earlier stamp, since the + * other thread may already own a lock that we also + * need. + */ + if (!waiter && (atomic_long_read(&lock->owner) & MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS)) + return false; + + /* + * Similarly, stop spinning if we are no longer the + * first waiter. + */ + if (waiter && !__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, waiter)) + return false; + + return true; +} + /* * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer access and not * reliable. @@ -379,7 +422,7 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx) */ static noinline bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner, - struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx) + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter) { bool ret = true; @@ -402,26 +445,9 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner, break; } - if (ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) { - struct ww_mutex *ww; - - ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base); - - /* - * If ww->ctx is set the contents are undefined, only - * by acquiring wait_lock there is a guarantee that - * they are not invalid when reading. - * - * As such, when deadlock detection needs to be - * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done. - * - * Check this in every inner iteration because we may - * be racing against another thread's ww_mutex_lock. - */ - if (READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)) { - ret = false; - break; - } + if (ww_ctx && !ww_mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, ww_ctx, waiter)) { + ret = false; + break; } cpu_relax(); @@ -484,7 +510,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock) */ static __always_inline bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, - const bool use_ww_ctx, const bool waiter) + const bool use_ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter) { if (!waiter) { /* @@ -518,7 +544,7 @@ mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, * There's an owner, wait for it to either * release the lock or go to sleep. */ - if (!mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner, ww_ctx)) + if (!mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner, ww_ctx, waiter)) goto fail_unlock; /* @@ -560,7 +586,7 @@ fail: #else static __always_inline bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, - const bool use_ww_ctx, const bool waiter) + const bool use_ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter) { return false; } @@ -731,7 +757,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip); if (__mutex_trylock(lock) || - mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, false)) { + mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, NULL)) { /* got the lock, yay! */ lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip); if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) @@ -820,7 +846,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, * or we must see its unlock and acquire. */ if (__mutex_trylock(lock) || - (first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, true))) + (first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, &waiter))) break; spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);