f20fda4861
Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
136 lines
5.6 KiB
Text
136 lines
5.6 KiB
Text
Generic Mutex Subsystem
|
|
|
|
started by Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
|
|
|
|
"Why on earth do we need a new mutex subsystem, and what's wrong
|
|
with semaphores?"
|
|
|
|
firstly, there's nothing wrong with semaphores. But if the simpler
|
|
mutex semantics are sufficient for your code, then there are a couple
|
|
of advantages of mutexes:
|
|
|
|
- 'struct mutex' is smaller on most architectures: .e.g on x86,
|
|
'struct semaphore' is 20 bytes, 'struct mutex' is 16 bytes.
|
|
A smaller structure size means less RAM footprint, and better
|
|
CPU-cache utilization.
|
|
|
|
- tighter code. On x86 i get the following .text sizes when
|
|
switching all mutex-alike semaphores in the kernel to the mutex
|
|
subsystem:
|
|
|
|
text data bss dec hex filename
|
|
3280380 868188 396860 4545428 455b94 vmlinux-semaphore
|
|
3255329 865296 396732 4517357 44eded vmlinux-mutex
|
|
|
|
that's 25051 bytes of code saved, or a 0.76% win - off the hottest
|
|
codepaths of the kernel. (The .data savings are 2892 bytes, or 0.33%)
|
|
Smaller code means better icache footprint, which is one of the
|
|
major optimization goals in the Linux kernel currently.
|
|
|
|
- the mutex subsystem is slightly faster and has better scalability for
|
|
contended workloads. On an 8-way x86 system, running a mutex-based
|
|
kernel and testing creat+unlink+close (of separate, per-task files)
|
|
in /tmp with 16 parallel tasks, the average number of ops/sec is:
|
|
|
|
Semaphores: Mutexes:
|
|
|
|
$ ./test-mutex V 16 10 $ ./test-mutex V 16 10
|
|
8 CPUs, running 16 tasks. 8 CPUs, running 16 tasks.
|
|
checking VFS performance. checking VFS performance.
|
|
avg loops/sec: 34713 avg loops/sec: 84153
|
|
CPU utilization: 63% CPU utilization: 22%
|
|
|
|
i.e. in this workload, the mutex based kernel was 2.4 times faster
|
|
than the semaphore based kernel, _and_ it also had 2.8 times less CPU
|
|
utilization. (In terms of 'ops per CPU cycle', the semaphore kernel
|
|
performed 551 ops/sec per 1% of CPU time used, while the mutex kernel
|
|
performed 3825 ops/sec per 1% of CPU time used - it was 6.9 times
|
|
more efficient.)
|
|
|
|
the scalability difference is visible even on a 2-way P4 HT box:
|
|
|
|
Semaphores: Mutexes:
|
|
|
|
$ ./test-mutex V 16 10 $ ./test-mutex V 16 10
|
|
4 CPUs, running 16 tasks. 8 CPUs, running 16 tasks.
|
|
checking VFS performance. checking VFS performance.
|
|
avg loops/sec: 127659 avg loops/sec: 181082
|
|
CPU utilization: 100% CPU utilization: 34%
|
|
|
|
(the straight performance advantage of mutexes is 41%, the per-cycle
|
|
efficiency of mutexes is 4.1 times better.)
|
|
|
|
- there are no fastpath tradeoffs, the mutex fastpath is just as tight
|
|
as the semaphore fastpath. On x86, the locking fastpath is 2
|
|
instructions:
|
|
|
|
c0377ccb <mutex_lock>:
|
|
c0377ccb: f0 ff 08 lock decl (%eax)
|
|
c0377cce: 78 0e js c0377cde <.text.lock.mutex>
|
|
c0377cd0: c3 ret
|
|
|
|
the unlocking fastpath is equally tight:
|
|
|
|
c0377cd1 <mutex_unlock>:
|
|
c0377cd1: f0 ff 00 lock incl (%eax)
|
|
c0377cd4: 7e 0f jle c0377ce5 <.text.lock.mutex+0x7>
|
|
c0377cd6: c3 ret
|
|
|
|
- 'struct mutex' semantics are well-defined and are enforced if
|
|
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is turned on. Semaphores on the other hand have
|
|
virtually no debugging code or instrumentation. The mutex subsystem
|
|
checks and enforces the following rules:
|
|
|
|
* - only one task can hold the mutex at a time
|
|
* - only the owner can unlock the mutex
|
|
* - multiple unlocks are not permitted
|
|
* - recursive locking is not permitted
|
|
* - a mutex object must be initialized via the API
|
|
* - a mutex object must not be initialized via memset or copying
|
|
* - task may not exit with mutex held
|
|
* - memory areas where held locks reside must not be freed
|
|
* - held mutexes must not be reinitialized
|
|
* - mutexes may not be used in hardware or software interrupt
|
|
* contexts such as tasklets and timers
|
|
|
|
furthermore, there are also convenience features in the debugging
|
|
code:
|
|
|
|
* - uses symbolic names of mutexes, whenever they are printed in debug output
|
|
* - point-of-acquire tracking, symbolic lookup of function names
|
|
* - list of all locks held in the system, printout of them
|
|
* - owner tracking
|
|
* - detects self-recursing locks and prints out all relevant info
|
|
* - detects multi-task circular deadlocks and prints out all affected
|
|
* locks and tasks (and only those tasks)
|
|
|
|
Disadvantages
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
The stricter mutex API means you cannot use mutexes the same way you
|
|
can use semaphores: e.g. they cannot be used from an interrupt context,
|
|
nor can they be unlocked from a different context that which acquired
|
|
it. [ I'm not aware of any other (e.g. performance) disadvantages from
|
|
using mutexes at the moment, please let me know if you find any. ]
|
|
|
|
Implementation of mutexes
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
'struct mutex' is the new mutex type, defined in include/linux/mutex.h
|
|
and implemented in kernel/mutex.c. It is a counter-based mutex with a
|
|
spinlock and a wait-list. The counter has 3 states: 1 for "unlocked",
|
|
0 for "locked" and negative numbers (usually -1) for "locked, potential
|
|
waiters queued".
|
|
|
|
the APIs of 'struct mutex' have been streamlined:
|
|
|
|
DEFINE_MUTEX(name);
|
|
|
|
mutex_init(mutex);
|
|
|
|
void mutex_lock(struct mutex *lock);
|
|
int mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock);
|
|
int mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock);
|
|
void mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock);
|
|
int mutex_is_locked(struct mutex *lock);
|
|
|