Message ID | 20230719070001.795010-1-guoren@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | asm-generic: ticket-lock: Optimize arch_spin_value_unlocked | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
conchuod/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next at HEAD 471aba2e4760 |
conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 4 and now 4 |
conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 2808 this patch: 2808 |
conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 15873 this patch: 15873 |
conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3 |
conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 31 lines checked |
conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On 7/19/23 03:00, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> > > Using arch_spinlock_is_locked would cause another unnecessary memory > access to the contended value. Although it won't cause a significant > performance gap in most architectures, the arch_spin_value_unlocked > argument contains enough information. Thus, remove unnecessary > atomic_read in arch_spin_value_unlocked(). AFAICS, only one memory access is needed for the current arch_spinlock_is_locked(). So your description isn't quite right. OTOH, caller of arch_spin_value_unlocked() could benefit from this change. Currently, the only caller is lockref. Other than that, the patch looks good to me. Cheers, Longman > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> > Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > Changelog: > This patch is separate from: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220808071318.3335746-1-guoren@kernel.org/ > > Peter & David have commented on it: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/YsK4Z9w0tFtgkni8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/ > --- > include/asm-generic/spinlock.h | 16 +++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h > index fdfebcb050f4..90803a826ba0 100644 > --- a/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h > +++ b/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h > @@ -68,11 +68,18 @@ static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > smp_store_release(ptr, (u16)val + 1); > } > > +static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) > +{ > + u32 val = lock.counter; > + > + return ((val >> 16) == (val & 0xffff)); > +} > + > static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > { > - u32 val = atomic_read(lock); > + arch_spinlock_t val = READ_ONCE(*lock); > > - return ((val >> 16) != (val & 0xffff)); > + return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(val); > } > > static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > @@ -82,11 +89,6 @@ static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > return (s16)((val >> 16) - (val & 0xffff)) > 1; > } > > -static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) > -{ > - return !arch_spin_is_locked(&lock); > -} > - > #include <asm/qrwlock.h> > > #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK_H */
On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 10:07:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 7/19/23 03:00, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > > From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > Using arch_spinlock_is_locked would cause another unnecessary memory > > access to the contended value. Although it won't cause a significant > > performance gap in most architectures, the arch_spin_value_unlocked > > argument contains enough information. Thus, remove unnecessary > > atomic_read in arch_spin_value_unlocked(). > > AFAICS, only one memory access is needed for the current > arch_spinlock_is_locked(). So your description isn't quite right. OTOH, Okay, I would improve it. Here means "arch_spin_value_unlocked using arch_spinlock_is_locked" would cause "an" unnecessary ... > caller of arch_spin_value_unlocked() could benefit from this change. > Currently, the only caller is lockref. Thx for comment, I would add it in the commit msg. New version is here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230731023308.3748432-1-guoren@kernel.org/ > > Other than that, the patch looks good to me. > > Cheers, > Longman > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> > > Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > > --- > > Changelog: > > This patch is separate from: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220808071318.3335746-1-guoren@kernel.org/ > > > > Peter & David have commented on it: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/YsK4Z9w0tFtgkni8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/ > > --- > > include/asm-generic/spinlock.h | 16 +++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h > > index fdfebcb050f4..90803a826ba0 100644 > > --- a/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h > > @@ -68,11 +68,18 @@ static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > > smp_store_release(ptr, (u16)val + 1); > > } > > +static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) > > +{ > > + u32 val = lock.counter; > > + > > + return ((val >> 16) == (val & 0xffff)); > > +} > > + > > static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > > { > > - u32 val = atomic_read(lock); > > + arch_spinlock_t val = READ_ONCE(*lock); > > - return ((val >> 16) != (val & 0xffff)); > > + return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(val); > > } > > static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > > @@ -82,11 +89,6 @@ static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock) > > return (s16)((val >> 16) - (val & 0xffff)) > 1; > > } > > -static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) > > -{ > > - return !arch_spin_is_locked(&lock); > > -} > > - > > #include <asm/qrwlock.h> > > #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK_H */ > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv >
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h index fdfebcb050f4..90803a826ba0 100644 --- a/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h +++ b/include/asm-generic/spinlock.h @@ -68,11 +68,18 @@ static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock) smp_store_release(ptr, (u16)val + 1); } +static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) +{ + u32 val = lock.counter; + + return ((val >> 16) == (val & 0xffff)); +} + static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock) { - u32 val = atomic_read(lock); + arch_spinlock_t val = READ_ONCE(*lock); - return ((val >> 16) != (val & 0xffff)); + return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(val); } static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock) @@ -82,11 +89,6 @@ static __always_inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock) return (s16)((val >> 16) - (val & 0xffff)) > 1; } -static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) -{ - return !arch_spin_is_locked(&lock); -} - #include <asm/qrwlock.h> #endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK_H */