[PATCH 04/17] powerpc/qspinlock: convert atomic operations to assembly

Christophe Leroy christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu
Thu Nov 10 19:36:48 AEDT 2022



Le 10/11/2022 à 01:39, Jordan Niethe a écrit :
> On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 16:31 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> [resend as utf-8, not utf-7]
>> This uses more optimal ll/sc style access patterns (rather than
>> cmpxchg), and also sets the EH=1 lock hint on those operations
>> which acquire ownership of the lock.
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h       | 25 +++++--
>>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_types.h |  6 +-
>>   arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c               | 81 +++++++++++++++-------
>>   3 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> index 79a1936fb68d..3ab354159e5e 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> @@ -2,28 +2,43 @@
>>   #ifndef _ASM_POWERPC_QSPINLOCK_H
>>   #define _ASM_POWERPC_QSPINLOCK_H
>>   
>> -#include <linux/atomic.h>
>>   #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>   #include <asm/qspinlock_types.h>
>>   
>>   static __always_inline int queued_spin_is_locked(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>   {
>> -	return atomic_read(&lock->val);
>> +	return READ_ONCE(lock->val);
>>   }
>>   
>>   static __always_inline int queued_spin_value_unlocked(struct qspinlock lock)
>>   {
>> -	return !atomic_read(&lock.val);
>> +	return !lock.val;
>>   }
>>   
>>   static __always_inline int queued_spin_is_contended(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>   {
>> -	return !!(atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK);
>> +	return !!(READ_ONCE(lock->val) & _Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK);
>>   }
>>   
>>   static __always_inline int queued_spin_trylock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>   {
>> -	if (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0)
>> +	u32 new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>> +	u32 prev;
>> +
>> +	asm volatile(
>> +"1:	lwarx	%0,0,%1,%3	# queued_spin_trylock			\n"
>> +"	cmpwi	0,%0,0							\n"
>> +"	bne-	2f							\n"
>> +"	stwcx.	%2,0,%1							\n"
>> +"	bne-	1b							\n"
>> +"\t"	PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER "						\n"
>> +"2:									\n"
>> +	: "=&r" (prev)
>> +	: "r" (&lock->val), "r" (new),
>> +	  "i" (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) ? 1 : 0)
> 
> btw IS_ENABLED() already returns 1 or 0
> 
>> +	: "cr0", "memory");
> 
> This is the ISA's "test and set" atomic primitive. Do you think it would be worth seperating it as a helper?
> 
>> +
>> +	if (likely(prev == 0))
>>   		return 1;
>>   	return 0;
> 
> same optional style nit: return likely(prev == 0);

	return likely(!prev);

> 
>>   }
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_types.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_types.h
>> index 3425dab42576..210adf05b235 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_types.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_types.h
>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>>   
>>   typedef struct qspinlock {
>>   	union {
>> -		atomic_t val;
>> +		u32 val;
>>   
>>   #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>>   		struct {
>> @@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ typedef struct qspinlock {
>>   	};
>>   } arch_spinlock_t;
>>   
>> -#define	__ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED	{ { .val = ATOMIC_INIT(0) } }
>> +#define	__ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED	{ { .val = 0 } }
>>   
>>   /*
>> - * Bitfields in the atomic value:
>> + * Bitfields in the lock word:
>>    *
>>    *     0: locked bit
>>    * 16-31: tail cpu (+1)
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
>> index 5ebb88d95636..7c71e5e287df 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c
>> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
>>   // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> -#include <linux/atomic.h>
>>   #include <linux/bug.h>
>>   #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>   #include <linux/export.h>
>> @@ -22,32 +21,59 @@ struct qnodes {
>>   
>>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct qnodes, qnodes);
>>   
>> -static inline int encode_tail_cpu(void)
>> +static inline u32 encode_tail_cpu(void)
>>   {
>>   	return (smp_processor_id() + 1) << _Q_TAIL_CPU_OFFSET;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static inline int get_tail_cpu(int val)
>> +static inline int get_tail_cpu(u32 val)
>>   {
>>   	return (val >> _Q_TAIL_CPU_OFFSET) - 1;
>>   }
>>   
>>   /* Take the lock by setting the bit, no other CPUs may concurrently lock it. */
> 
> I think you missed deleting the above line.
> 
>> +/* Take the lock by setting the lock bit, no other CPUs will touch it. */
>>   static __always_inline void lock_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>   {
>> -	atomic_or(_Q_LOCKED_VAL, &lock->val);
>> -	__atomic_acquire_fence();
>> +	u32 new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>> +	u32 prev;
>> +
>> +	asm volatile(
>> +"1:	lwarx	%0,0,%1,%3	# lock_set_locked			\n"
>> +"	or	%0,%0,%2						\n"
>> +"	stwcx.	%0,0,%1							\n"
>> +"	bne-	1b							\n"
>> +"\t"	PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER "						\n"
>> +	: "=&r" (prev)
>> +	: "r" (&lock->val), "r" (new),
>> +	  "i" (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) ? 1 : 0)
>> +	: "cr0", "memory");
>>   }
> 
> This is pretty similar with the DEFINE_TESTOP() pattern from
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h (such as test_and_set_bits_lock()) except for
> word instead of double word. Do you think it's possible / beneficial to make
> use of those macros?
> 
> 
>>   
>> -/* Take lock, clearing tail, cmpxchg with val (which must not be locked) */
>> -static __always_inline int trylock_clear_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, int val)
>> +/* Take lock, clearing tail, cmpxchg with old (which must not be locked) */
>> +static __always_inline int trylock_clear_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 old)
>>   {
>> -	int newval = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>> -
>> -	if (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, val, newval) == val)
>> +	u32 new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>> +	u32 prev;
>> +
>> +	BUG_ON(old & _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
> 
> The BUG_ON() could have been introduced in an earlier patch I think.

Can we avoid the BUG_ON() at all and replace by a WARN_ON ?

> 
>> +
>> +	asm volatile(
>> +"1:	lwarx	%0,0,%1,%4	# trylock_clear_tail_cpu		\n"
>> +"	cmpw	0,%0,%2							\n"
>> +"	bne-	2f							\n"
>> +"	stwcx.	%3,0,%1							\n"
>> +"	bne-	1b							\n"
>> +"\t"	PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER "						\n"
>> +"2:									\n"
>> +	: "=&r" (prev)
>> +	: "r" (&lock->val), "r"(old), "r" (new),
> 
> Could this be like  "r"(_Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) below?
> i.e. "r" (_Q_LOCKED_VAL)? Makes it clear new doesn't change.
> 
>> +	  "i" (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) ? 1 : 0)
>> +	: "cr0", "memory");
>> +
>> +	if (likely(prev == old))
>>   		return 1;
>> -	else
>> -		return 0;
>> +	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
>>   /*
>> @@ -56,20 +82,25 @@ static __always_inline int trylock_clear_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, int va
>>    * This provides a release barrier for publishing node, and an acquire barrier
> 
> Does the comment mean there needs to be an acquire barrier in this assembly?
> 
> 
>>    * for getting the old node.
>>    */
>> -static __always_inline int publish_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, int tail)
>> +static __always_inline u32 publish_tail_cpu(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
>>   {
>> -	for (;;) {
>> -		int val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
>> -		int newval = (val & ~_Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK) | tail;
>> -		int old;
>> -
>> -		old = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, newval);
>> -		if (old == val)
>> -			return old;
>> -	}
>> +	u32 prev, tmp;
>> +
>> +	asm volatile(
>> +"\t"	PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER "						\n"
>> +"1:	lwarx	%0,0,%2		# publish_tail_cpu			\n"
>> +"	andc	%1,%0,%4						\n"
>> +"	or	%1,%1,%3						\n"
>> +"	stwcx.	%1,0,%2							\n"
>> +"	bne-	1b							\n"
>> +	: "=&r" (prev), "=&r"(tmp)
>> +	: "r" (&lock->val), "r" (tail), "r"(_Q_TAIL_CPU_MASK)
>> +	: "cr0", "memory");
>> +
>> +	return prev;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static struct qnode *get_tail_qnode(struct qspinlock *lock, int val)
>> +static struct qnode *get_tail_qnode(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
>>   {
>>   	int cpu = get_tail_cpu(val);
>>   	struct qnodes *qnodesp = per_cpu_ptr(&qnodes, cpu);
>> @@ -88,7 +119,7 @@ static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>   {
>>   	struct qnodes *qnodesp;
>>   	struct qnode *next, *node;
>> -	int val, old, tail;
>> +	u32 val, old, tail;
>>   	int idx;
>>   
>>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS >= (1U << _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS));
>> @@ -134,7 +165,7 @@ static inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	/* We're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the lock. */
>> -	while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
>> +	while ((val = READ_ONCE(lock->val)) & _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
>>   		cpu_relax();
>>   
>>   	/* If we're the last queued, must clean up the tail. */
> 


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list