diff options
| author | Peter Zijlstra | 2015-09-04 17:25:23 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ingo Molnar | 2015-09-11 07:49:42 +0200 |
| commit | 43b3f02899f74ae9914a39547cc5492156f0027a (patch) | |
| tree | 0db5018c95f8d243b974f42abda1c0c618abeee5 /arch/x86 | |
| parent | edcd591c77a48da753456f92daf8bb50fe9bac93 (diff) | |
locking/qspinlock/x86: Fix performance regression under unaccelerated VMs
Dave ran into horrible performance on a VM without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
set and Linus noted that the test-and-set implementation was retarded.
One should spin on the variable with a load, not a RMW.
While there, remove 'queued' from the name, as the lock isn't queued
at all, but a simple test-and-set.
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Reported-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Tested-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.2+
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150904152523.GR18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/x86')
| -rw-r--r-- | arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 16 |
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h index 9d51fae1cba3..8dde3bdc4a05 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h @@ -39,15 +39,23 @@ static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) } #endif -#define virt_queued_spin_lock virt_queued_spin_lock +#define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock -static inline bool virt_queued_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) { if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) return false; - while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0) - cpu_relax(); + /* + * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall + * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have + * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. + */ + + do { + while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) + cpu_relax(); + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); return true; } |