2008-01-30 20:30:33 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifndef _X86_SPINLOCK_H_
|
|
|
|
#define _X86_SPINLOCK_H_
|
|
|
|
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <asm/atomic.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/rwlock.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/page.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <asm/processor.h>
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/compiler.h>
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Your basic SMP spinlocks, allowing only a single CPU anywhere
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Simple spin lock operations. There are two variants, one clears IRQ's
|
|
|
|
* on the local processor, one does not.
|
|
|
|
*
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
* These are fair FIFO ticket locks, which are currently limited to 256
|
|
|
|
* CPUs.
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* (the type definitions are in asm/spinlock_types.h)
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-11 17:20:03 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
# define LOCK_PTR_REG "a"
|
2007-10-11 17:20:03 +08:00
|
|
|
#else
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
# define LOCK_PTR_REG "D"
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
#if defined(CONFIG_X86_32) && \
|
|
|
|
(defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) || defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE))
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* On PPro SMP or if we are using OOSTORE, we use a locked operation to unlock
|
|
|
|
* (PPro errata 66, 92)
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX LOCK_PREFIX
|
|
|
|
#else
|
|
|
|
# define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Ticket locks are conceptually two parts, one indicating the current head of
|
|
|
|
* the queue, and the other indicating the current tail. The lock is acquired
|
|
|
|
* by atomically noting the tail and incrementing it by one (thus adding
|
|
|
|
* ourself to the queue and noting our position), then waiting until the head
|
|
|
|
* becomes equal to the the initial value of the tail.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* We use an xadd covering *both* parts of the lock, to increment the tail and
|
|
|
|
* also load the position of the head, which takes care of memory ordering
|
|
|
|
* issues and should be optimal for the uncontended case. Note the tail must be
|
|
|
|
* in the high part, because a wide xadd increment of the low part would carry
|
|
|
|
* up and contaminate the high part.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* With fewer than 2^8 possible CPUs, we can use x86's partial registers to
|
|
|
|
* save some instructions and make the code more elegant. There really isn't
|
|
|
|
* much between them in performance though, especially as locks are out of line.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#if (NR_CPUS < 256)
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_spin_is_locked(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2008-05-11 10:52:43 +08:00
|
|
|
int tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->slock);
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (((tmp >> 8) & 0xff) != (tmp & 0xff));
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_spin_is_contended(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2008-05-11 10:52:43 +08:00
|
|
|
int tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->slock);
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (((tmp >> 8) & 0xff) - (tmp & 0xff)) > 1;
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-29 17:29:38 +08:00
|
|
|
static __always_inline void __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
short inc = 0x0100;
|
|
|
|
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
asm volatile (
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %w0, %1\n"
|
|
|
|
"1:\t"
|
|
|
|
"cmpb %h0, %b0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"je 2f\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"rep ; nop\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"movb %1, %b0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
/* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
"jmp 1b\n"
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
"2:"
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
: "+Q" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock)
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
:
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
: "memory", "cc");
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define __raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) __raw_spin_lock(lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2008-02-29 17:29:38 +08:00
|
|
|
static __always_inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
int tmp;
|
|
|
|
short new;
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
asm volatile("movw %2,%w0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"cmpb %h0,%b0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"jne 1f\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"movw %w0,%w1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"incb %h1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"lock ; cmpxchgw %w1,%2\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"1:"
|
|
|
|
"sete %b1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"movzbl %b1,%0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
: "=&a" (tmp), "=Q" (new), "+m" (lock->slock)
|
|
|
|
:
|
|
|
|
: "memory", "cc");
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return tmp;
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-29 17:29:38 +08:00
|
|
|
static __always_inline void __raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
asm volatile(UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX "incb %0"
|
|
|
|
: "+m" (lock->slock)
|
|
|
|
:
|
|
|
|
: "memory", "cc");
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
#else
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_spin_is_locked(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2008-05-11 10:52:43 +08:00
|
|
|
int tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->slock);
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (((tmp >> 16) & 0xffff) != (tmp & 0xffff));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_spin_is_contended(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2008-05-11 10:52:43 +08:00
|
|
|
int tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->slock);
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (((tmp >> 16) & 0xffff) - (tmp & 0xffff)) > 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-29 17:29:38 +08:00
|
|
|
static __always_inline void __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int inc = 0x00010000;
|
|
|
|
int tmp;
|
|
|
|
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
asm volatile("lock ; xaddl %0, %1\n"
|
|
|
|
"movzwl %w0, %2\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"shrl $16, %0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"1:\t"
|
|
|
|
"cmpl %0, %2\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"je 2f\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"rep ; nop\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"movzwl %1, %2\n\t"
|
|
|
|
/* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
|
|
|
|
"jmp 1b\n"
|
|
|
|
"2:"
|
|
|
|
: "+Q" (inc), "+m" (lock->slock), "=r" (tmp)
|
|
|
|
:
|
|
|
|
: "memory", "cc");
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define __raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) __raw_spin_lock(lock)
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-29 17:29:38 +08:00
|
|
|
static __always_inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int tmp;
|
|
|
|
int new;
|
|
|
|
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
asm volatile("movl %2,%0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"movl %0,%1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"roll $16, %0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"cmpl %0,%1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"jne 1f\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"addl $0x00010000, %1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"lock ; cmpxchgl %1,%2\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"1:"
|
|
|
|
"sete %b1\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"movzbl %b1,%0\n\t"
|
|
|
|
: "=&a" (tmp), "=r" (new), "+m" (lock->slock)
|
|
|
|
:
|
|
|
|
: "memory", "cc");
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return tmp;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2008-02-29 17:29:38 +08:00
|
|
|
static __always_inline void __raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2008-03-23 16:03:31 +08:00
|
|
|
asm volatile(UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX "incw %0"
|
|
|
|
: "+m" (lock->slock)
|
|
|
|
:
|
|
|
|
: "memory", "cc");
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2008-01-30 20:33:00 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void __raw_spin_unlock_wait(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
while (__raw_spin_is_locked(lock))
|
|
|
|
cpu_relax();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Read-write spinlocks, allowing multiple readers
|
|
|
|
* but only one writer.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* NOTE! it is quite common to have readers in interrupts
|
|
|
|
* but no interrupt writers. For those circumstances we
|
|
|
|
* can "mix" irq-safe locks - any writer needs to get a
|
|
|
|
* irq-safe write-lock, but readers can get non-irqsafe
|
|
|
|
* read-locks.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* On x86, we implement read-write locks as a 32-bit counter
|
|
|
|
* with the high bit (sign) being the "contended" bit.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* read_can_lock - would read_trylock() succeed?
|
|
|
|
* @lock: the rwlock in question.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_read_can_lock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return (int)(lock)->lock > 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
x86: FIFO ticket spinlocks
Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation
is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction
sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs,
however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of
cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache.
trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare.
On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable,
with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and
some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!)
times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same
time.
The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the
implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers.
The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so
lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per
spinlock for it.
After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled
and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because
at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if
the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway:
if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section,
then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep
critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this
patch does).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-01-30 20:31:21 +08:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* write_can_lock - would write_trylock() succeed?
|
|
|
|
* @lock: the rwlock in question.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2008-01-30 20:30:34 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_write_can_lock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return (lock)->lock == RW_LOCK_BIAS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void __raw_read_lock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX " subl $1,(%0)\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"jns 1f\n"
|
|
|
|
"call __read_lock_failed\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"1:\n"
|
|
|
|
::LOCK_PTR_REG (rw) : "memory");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void __raw_write_lock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX " subl %1,(%0)\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"jz 1f\n"
|
|
|
|
"call __write_lock_failed\n\t"
|
|
|
|
"1:\n"
|
|
|
|
::LOCK_PTR_REG (rw), "i" (RW_LOCK_BIAS) : "memory");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
atomic_t *count = (atomic_t *)lock;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
atomic_dec(count);
|
|
|
|
if (atomic_read(count) >= 0)
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
atomic_inc(count);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline int __raw_write_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
atomic_t *count = (atomic_t *)lock;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (atomic_sub_and_test(RW_LOCK_BIAS, count))
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
atomic_add(RW_LOCK_BIAS, count);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void __raw_read_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "incl %0" :"+m" (rw->lock) : : "memory");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "addl %1, %0"
|
|
|
|
: "+m" (rw->lock) : "i" (RW_LOCK_BIAS) : "memory");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define _raw_spin_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
|
|
|
|
#define _raw_read_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
|
|
|
|
#define _raw_write_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
|
|
|
|
|
2008-01-30 20:30:33 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif
|