> * Jiri Olsa (
jolsa@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:18:48PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 12:25:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 11:24:38AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > * Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > > > > > > >> @@ -302,4 +302,7 @@ static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
> > > > > > > > >> #define _raw_read_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
> > > > > > > > >> #define _raw_write_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> +/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */
> > > > > > > > >> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() do { } while (0)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Two small stylistic comments, please make this an inline function:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { }
> > > > > > > > > #define smp_mb__after_lock
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (untested)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> +/* The lock does not imply full memory barrier. */
> > > > > > > > >> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_lock
> > > > > > > > >> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() smp_mb()
> > > > > > > > >> +#endif
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ditto.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ingo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This was following existing implementations of various smp_mb__??? helpers :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > # grep -4 smp_mb__before_clear_bit include/asm-generic/bitops.h
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > * clear_bit may not imply a memory barrier
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > #ifndef smp_mb__before_clear_bit
> > > > > > > > #define smp_mb__before_clear_bit() smp_mb()
> > > > > > > > #define smp_mb__after_clear_bit() smp_mb()
> > > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did i mention that those should be fixed too? :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ingo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ok, could I include it in the 2/2 or you prefer separate patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > depends on whether it will regress ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > If it regresses, it's better to have it separate. If it wont, it can
> > > > > be included. If unsure, default to the more conservative option.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ingo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > how about this..
> > > > and similar change for smp_mb__before_clear_bit in a separate patch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > > index b7e5db8..4e77853 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > > > @@ -302,4 +302,8 @@ static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
> > > > #define _raw_read_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
> > > > #define _raw_write_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
> > > >
> > > > +/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */
> > > > +static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { }
> > > > +#define ARCH_HAS_SMP_MB_AFTER_LOCK
> > > > +
> > > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_SPINLOCK_H */
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > > > index 252b245..4be57ab 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > > > @@ -132,6 +132,11 @@ do { \
> > > > #endif /*__raw_spin_is_contended*/
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > +/* The lock does not imply full memory barrier. */
> > > > +#ifndef ARCH_HAS_SMP_MB_AFTER_LOCK
> > > > +static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { smp_mb(); }
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > /**
> > > > * spin_unlock_wait - wait until the spinlock gets unlocked
> > > > * @lock: the spinlock in question.
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> > > > index 4eb8409..98afcd9 100644
> > > > --- a/include/net/sock.h
> > > > +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> > > > @@ -1271,6 +1271,9 @@ static inline int sk_has_allocations(const struct sock *sk)
> > > > * in its cache, and so does the tp->rcv_nxt update on CPU2 side. The CPU1
> > > > * could then endup calling schedule and sleep forever if there are no more
> > > > * data on the socket.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * The sk_has_helper is always called right after a call to read_lock, so we
> > > > + * can use smp_mb__after_lock barrier.
> > > > */
> > > > static inline int sk_has_sleeper(struct sock *sk)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -1280,7 +1283,7 @@ static inline int sk_has_sleeper(struct sock *sk)
> > > > *
> > > > * This memory barrier is paired in the sock_poll_wait.
> > > > */
> > > > - smp_mb();
> > > > + smp_mb__after_lock();
> > > > return sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > any feedback on this?
> > > I'd send v6 if this way is acceptable..
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > jirka
> >
> > also I checked the smp_mb__before_clear_bit/smp_mb__after_clear_bit and
> > it is used quite extensivelly.
> >
> > I'd prefer to send it in a separate patch, so we can move on with the
> > changes I've sent so far..
> >
>
> As with any optimization (and this is one that adds a semantic that will
> just grow the memory barrier/locking rule complexity), it should come
> with performance benchmarks showing real-life improvements.
>
> Otherwise I'd recommend sticking to smp_mb() if this execution path is
> not that critical, or to move to RCU if it's _that_ critical.
>
> A valid argument would be if the data structures protected are so
> complex that RCU is out of question but still the few cycles saved by
> removing a memory barrier are really significant. And even then, the
> proper solution would be more something like a
> __read_lock()+smp_mb+smp_mb+__read_unlock(), so we get the performance
> improvements on architectures other than x86 as well.
>
> So in all cases, I don't think the smp_mb__after_lock() is the
> appropriate solution.
