[PATCH v3 2/2] locking/rwsem: Optimize down_read_trylock()
Will Deacon
will.deacon at arm.com
Fri Feb 15 05:02:39 AEDT 2019
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:33:33AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 03:32:12PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > Modify __down_read_trylock() to optimize for an unlocked rwsem and make
> > it generate slightly better code.
> >
> > Before this patch, down_read_trylock:
> >
> > 0x0000000000000000 <+0>: callq 0x5 <down_read_trylock+5>
> > 0x0000000000000005 <+5>: jmp 0x18 <down_read_trylock+24>
> > 0x0000000000000007 <+7>: lea 0x1(%rdx),%rcx
> > 0x000000000000000b <+11>: mov %rdx,%rax
> > 0x000000000000000e <+14>: lock cmpxchg %rcx,(%rdi)
> > 0x0000000000000013 <+19>: cmp %rax,%rdx
> > 0x0000000000000016 <+22>: je 0x23 <down_read_trylock+35>
> > 0x0000000000000018 <+24>: mov (%rdi),%rdx
> > 0x000000000000001b <+27>: test %rdx,%rdx
> > 0x000000000000001e <+30>: jns 0x7 <down_read_trylock+7>
> > 0x0000000000000020 <+32>: xor %eax,%eax
> > 0x0000000000000022 <+34>: retq
> > 0x0000000000000023 <+35>: mov %gs:0x0,%rax
> > 0x000000000000002c <+44>: or $0x3,%rax
> > 0x0000000000000030 <+48>: mov %rax,0x20(%rdi)
> > 0x0000000000000034 <+52>: mov $0x1,%eax
> > 0x0000000000000039 <+57>: retq
> >
> > After patch, down_read_trylock:
> >
> > 0x0000000000000000 <+0>: callq 0x5 <down_read_trylock+5>
> > 0x0000000000000005 <+5>: xor %eax,%eax
> > 0x0000000000000007 <+7>: lea 0x1(%rax),%rdx
> > 0x000000000000000b <+11>: lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi)
> > 0x0000000000000010 <+16>: jne 0x29 <down_read_trylock+41>
> > 0x0000000000000012 <+18>: mov %gs:0x0,%rax
> > 0x000000000000001b <+27>: or $0x3,%rax
> > 0x000000000000001f <+31>: mov %rax,0x20(%rdi)
> > 0x0000000000000023 <+35>: mov $0x1,%eax
> > 0x0000000000000028 <+40>: retq
> > 0x0000000000000029 <+41>: test %rax,%rax
> > 0x000000000000002c <+44>: jns 0x7 <down_read_trylock+7>
> > 0x000000000000002e <+46>: xor %eax,%eax
> > 0x0000000000000030 <+48>: retq
> >
> > By using a rwsem microbenchmark, the down_read_trylock() rate (with a
> > load of 10 to lengthen the lock critical section) on a x86-64 system
> > before and after the patch were:
> >
> > Before Patch After Patch
> > # of Threads rlock rlock
> > ------------ ----- -----
> > 1 14,496 14,716
> > 2 8,644 8,453
> > 4 6,799 6,983
> > 8 5,664 7,190
> >
> > On a ARM64 system, the performance results were:
> >
> > Before Patch After Patch
> > # of Threads rlock rlock
> > ------------ ----- -----
> > 1 23,676 24,488
> > 2 7,697 9,502
> > 4 4,945 3,440
> > 8 2,641 1,603
>
> Urgh, yes LL/SC is the obvious exception that can actually do better
> here :/
>
> Will, what say you?
What machine were these numbers generated on and is it using LL/SC or LSE
atomics for arm64? If you stick the microbenchmark somewhere, I can go play
with a broader variety of h/w.
Will
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list