aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/include/asm-x86/spinlock.h
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* paravirt: introduce a "lock-byte" spinlock implementationJeremy Fitzhardinge2008-07-16
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Implement a version of the old spinlock algorithm, in which everyone spins waiting for a lock byte. In order to be compatible with the ticket-lock's use of a zero initializer, this uses the convention of '0' for unlocked and '1' for locked. This algorithm is much better than ticket locks in a virtual envionment, because it doesn't interact badly with the vcpu scheduler. If there are multiple vcpus spinning on a lock and the lock is released, the next vcpu to be scheduled will take the lock, rather than cycling around until the next ticketed vcpu gets it. To use this, you must call paravirt_use_bytelocks() very early, before any spinlocks have been taken. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz> Cc: Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org> Cc: Xen devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> Cc: Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@amd.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
* x86/paravirt: add hooks for spinlock operationsJeremy Fitzhardinge2008-07-16
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ticket spinlocks have absolutely ghastly worst-case performance characteristics in a virtual environment. If there is any contention for physical CPUs (ie, there are more runnable vcpus than cpus), then ticket locks can cause the system to end up spending 90+% of its time spinning. The problem is that (v)cpus waiting on a ticket spinlock will be granted access to the lock in strict order they got their tickets. If the hypervisor scheduler doesn't give the vcpus time in that order, they will burn timeslices waiting for the scheduler to give the right vcpu some time. In the worst case it could take O(n^2) vcpu scheduler timeslices for everyone waiting on the lock to get it, not counting new cpus trying to take the lock while the log-jam is sorted out. These hooks allow a paravirt backend to replace the spinlock implementation. At the very least, this could revert the implementation back to the old lock algorithm, which allows the next scheduled vcpu to take the lock, and has basically fairly good performance. It also allows the spinlocks to take advantages of the hypervisor features to make locks more efficient (spin and block, for example). The cost to native execution is an extra direct call when using a spinlock function. There's no overhead if CONFIG_PARAVIRT is turned off. The lock structure is fixed at a single "unsigned int", initialized to zero, but the spinlock implementation can use it as it wishes. Thanks to Thomas Friebel's Xen Summit talk "Preventing Guests from Spinning Around" for pointing out this problem. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz> Cc: Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org> Cc: Xen devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> Cc: Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@amd.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
* Make <asm-x86/spinlock.h> use ACCESS_ONCE()Linus Torvalds2008-05-10
| | | | | | ..instead of cooking up its own uglier local version of it. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
* x86: spinlock ops are always-inlinedIngo Molnar2008-04-17
| | | | Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
* include/asm-x86/spinlock.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting onlyJoe Perches2008-04-17
| | | | | Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
* x86: big ticket locksNick Piggin2008-01-30
| | | | | | | | | This implements ticket lock support for more than 255 CPUs on x86. The code gets switched according to the configured NR_CPUS. Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
* x86: cleanup CLI_STRING, STI_STRING and friendsGlauber de Oliveira Costa2008-01-30
| | | | | | | | | Since the advent of ticket locking, CLI_STRING, STI_STRING, and friends are not used anymore. They can now be safely deleted. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
* x86: FIFO ticket spinlocksNick Piggin2008-01-30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Introduce ticket lock spinlocks for x86 which are FIFO. The implementation is described in the comments. The straight-line lock/unlock instruction sequence is slightly slower than the dec based locks on modern x86 CPUs, however the difference is quite small on Core2 and Opteron when working out of cache, and becomes almost insignificant even on P4 when the lock misses cache. trylock is more significantly slower, but they are relatively rare. On an 8 core (2 socket) Opteron, spinlock unfairness is extremely noticable, with a userspace test having a difference of up to 2x runtime per thread, and some threads are starved or "unfairly" granted the lock up to 1 000 000 (!) times. After this patch, all threads appear to finish at exactly the same time. The memory ordering of the lock does conform to x86 standards, and the implementation has been reviewed by Intel and AMD engineers. The algorithm also tells us how many CPUs are contending the lock, so lockbreak becomes trivial and we no longer have to waste 4 bytes per spinlock for it. After this, we can no longer spin on any locks with preempt enabled and cannot reenable interrupts when spinning on an irq safe lock, because at that point we have already taken a ticket and the would deadlock if the same CPU tries to take the lock again. These are questionable anyway: if the lock happens to be called under a preempt or interrupt disabled section, then it will just have the same latency problems. The real fix is to keep critical sections short, and ensure locks are reasonably fair (which this patch does). Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
* x86: merge spinlock.h variantsThomas Gleixner2008-01-30
| | | | | | | Merge them finally together Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
* x86: consolidate spinlock.hGlauber de Oliveira Costa2008-01-30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | The cli and sti instructions need to be replaced by paravirt hooks. For the i386 architecture, this is already done. The code requirements aren't much different from x86_64 POV, so this part is consolidated in the common header Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xensource.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
* i386/x86_64: move headers to include/asm-x86Thomas Gleixner2007-10-11
Move the headers to include/asm-x86 and fixup the header install make rules Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>