mutex: fix
mutex: Make more scalable by doing less atomic operations

In the __mutex_lock_common() function, an initial entry into
the lock slow path will cause two atomic_xchg instructions to be
issued. Together with the atomic decrement in the fast path, a
total of three atomic read-modify-write instructions will be
issued in rapid succession. This can cause a lot of cache
bouncing when many tasks are trying to acquire the mutex at the
same time.

This patch will reduce the number of atomic_xchg instructions
used by checking the counter value first before issuing the
instruction. The atomic_read() function is just a simple memory
read. The atomic_xchg() function, on the other hand, can be up
to 2 order of magnitude or even more in cost when compared with
atomic_read(). By using atomic_read() to check the value first
before calling atomic_xchg(), we can avoid a lot of unnecessary
cache coherency traffic. The only downside with this change is
that a task on the slow path will have a tiny bit less chance of
getting the mutex when competing with another task in the fast
path.

The same is true for the atomic_cmpxchg() function in the
mutex-spin-on-owner loop. So an atomic_read() is also performed
before calling atomic_cmpxchg().

The mutex locking and unlocking code for the x86 architecture
can allow any negative number to be used in the mutex count to
indicate that some tasks are waiting for the mutex. I am not so
sure if that is the case for the other architectures. So the
default is to avoid atomic_xchg() if the count has already been
set to -1. For x86, the check is modified to include all
negative numbers to cover a larger case.

The following table shows the jobs per minutes (JPM) scalability
data on an 8-node 80-core Westmere box with a 3.7.10 kernel. The
numactl command is used to restrict the running of the
high_systime workloads to 1/2/4/8 nodes with hyperthreading on
and off.

+-----------------+-----------+------------+----------+
|  Configuration  | Mean JPM  |  Mean JPM  | % Change |
|		  | w/o patch | with patch |	      |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
|		  |      User Range 1100 - 2000	      |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
| 8 nodes, HT on  |    36980   |   148590  | +301.8%  |
| 8 nodes, HT off |    42799   |   145011  | +238.8%  |
| 4 nodes, HT on  |    61318   |   118445  |  +51.1%  |
| 4 nodes, HT off |   158481   |   158592  |   +0.1%  |
| 2 nodes, HT on  |   180602   |   173967  |   -3.7%  |
| 2 nodes, HT off |   198409   |   198073  |   -0.2%  |
| 1 node , HT on  |   149042   |   147671  |   -0.9%  |
| 1 node , HT off |   126036   |   126533  |   +0.4%  |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
|		  |       User Range 200 - 1000	      |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
| 8 nodes, HT on  |   41525    |   122349  | +194.6%  |
| 8 nodes, HT off |   49866    |   124032  | +148.7%  |
| 4 nodes, HT on  |   66409    |   106984  |  +61.1%  |
| 4 nodes, HT off |  119880    |   130508  |   +8.9%  |
| 2 nodes, HT on  |  138003    |   133948  |   -2.9%  |
| 2 nodes, HT off |  132792    |   131997  |   -0.6%  |
| 1 node , HT on  |  116593    |   115859  |   -0.6%  |
| 1 node , HT off |  104499    |   104597  |   +0.1%  |
+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+

At low user range 10-100, the JPM differences were within +/-1%.
So they are not that interesting.

AIM7 benchmark run has a pretty large run-to-run variance due to
random nature of the subtests executed. So a difference of less
than +-5% may not be really significant.

This patch improves high_systime workload performance at 4 nodes
and up by maintaining transaction rates without significant
drop-off at high node count.  The patch has practically no
impact on 1 and 2 nodes system.

The table below shows the percentage time (as reported by perf
record -a -s -g) spent on the __mutex_lock_slowpath() function
by the high_systime workload at 1500 users for 2/4/8-node
configurations with hyperthreading off.

+---------------+-----------------+------------------+---------+
| Configuration | %Time w/o patch | %Time with patch | %Change |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------+---------+
|    8 nodes    |      65.34%     |      0.69%       |  -99%   |
|    4 nodes    |       8.70%	  |      1.02%	     |  -88%   |
|    2 nodes    |       0.41%     |      0.32%       |  -22%   |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------+---------+

It is obvious that the dramatic performance improvement at 8
nodes was due to the drastic cut in the time spent within the
__mutex_lock_slowpath() function.

The table below show the improvements in other AIM7 workloads
(at 8 nodes, hyperthreading off).

+--------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
|   Workload   | mean % change | mean % change  | mean % change   |
|              | 10-100 users  | 200-1000 users | 1100-2000 users |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| alltests     |     +0.6%     |   +104.2%      |   +185.9%       |
| five_sec     |     +1.9%     |     +0.9%      |     +0.9%       |
| fserver      |     +1.4%     |     -7.7%      |     +5.1%       |
| new_fserver  |     -0.5%     |     +3.2%      |     +3.1%       |
| shared       |    +13.1%     |   +146.1%      |   +181.5%       |
| short        |     +7.4%     |     +5.0%      |     +4.2%       |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Chandramouleeswaran Aswin <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Norton: Scott J <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1366226594-5506-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
mutex: Queue mutex spinners with MCS lock to reduce cacheline contention

The current mutex spinning code (with MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER option
turned on) allow multiple tasks to spin on a single mutex
concurrently. A potential problem with the current approach is
that when the mutex becomes available, all the spinning tasks
will try to acquire the mutex more or less simultaneously. As a
result, there will be a lot of cacheline bouncing especially on
systems with a large number of CPUs.

This patch tries to reduce this kind of contention by putting
the mutex spinners into a queue so that only the first one in
the queue will try to acquire the mutex. This will reduce
contention and allow all the tasks to move forward faster.

The queuing of mutex spinners is done using an MCS lock based
implementation which will further reduce contention on the mutex
cacheline than a similar ticket spinlock based implementation.
This patch will add a new field into the mutex data structure
for holding the MCS lock. This expands the mutex size by 8 bytes
for 64-bit system and 4 bytes for 32-bit system. This overhead
will be avoid if the MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER option is turned off.

The following table shows the jobs per minute (JPM) scalability
data on an 8-node 80-core Westmere box with a 3.7.10 kernel. The
numactl command is used to restrict the running of the fserver
workloads to 1/2/4/8 nodes with hyperthreading off.

+-----------------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----------+
|  Configuration  | Mean JPM  | Mean JPM  |  Mean JPM   | % Change |
|                 | w/o patch | patch 1   | patches 1&2 |  1->1&2  |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                 |              User Range 1100 - 2000            |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| 8 nodes, HT off |  227972   |  227237   |   305043    |  +34.2%  |
| 4 nodes, HT off |  393503   |  381558   |   394650    |   +3.4%  |
| 2 nodes, HT off |  334957   |  325240   |   338853    |   +4.2%  |
| 1 node , HT off |  198141   |  197972   |   198075    |   +0.1%  |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                 |              User Range 200 - 1000             |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| 8 nodes, HT off |  282325   |  312870   |   332185    |   +6.2%  |
| 4 nodes, HT off |  390698   |  378279   |   393419    |   +4.0%  |
| 2 nodes, HT off |  336986   |  326543   |   340260    |   +4.2%  |
| 1 node , HT off |  197588   |  197622   |   197582    |    0.0%  |
+-----------------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----------+

At low user range 10-100, the JPM differences were within +/-1%.
So they are not that interesting.

The fserver workload uses mutex spinning extensively. With just
the mutex change in the first patch, there is no noticeable
change in performance.  Rather, there is a slight drop in
performance. This mutex spinning patch more than recovers the
lost performance and show a significant increase of +30% at high
user load with the full 8 nodes. Similar improvements were also
seen in a 3.8 kernel.

The table below shows the %time spent by different kernel
functions as reported by perf when running the fserver workload
at 1500 users with all 8 nodes.

+-----------------------+-----------+---------+-------------+
|        Function       |  % time   | % time  |   % time    |
|                       | w/o patch | patch 1 | patches 1&2 |
+-----------------------+-----------+---------+-------------+
| __read_lock_failed    |  34.96%   | 34.91%  |   29.14%    |
| __write_lock_failed   |  10.14%   | 10.68%  |    7.51%    |
| mutex_spin_on_owner   |   3.62%   |  3.42%  |    2.33%    |
| mspin_lock            |    N/A    |   N/A   |    9.90%    |
| __mutex_lock_slowpath |   1.46%   |  0.81%  |    0.14%    |
| _raw_spin_lock        |   2.25%   |  2.50%  |    1.10%    |
+-----------------------+-----------+---------+-------------+

The fserver workload for an 8-node system is dominated by the
contention in the read/write lock. Mutex contention also plays a
role. With the first patch only, mutex contention is down (as
shown by the __mutex_lock_slowpath figure) which help a little
bit. We saw only a few percents improvement with that.

By applying patch 2 as well, the single mutex_spin_on_owner
figure is now split out into an additional mspin_lock figure.
The time increases from 3.42% to 11.23%. It shows a great
reduction in contention among the spinners leading to a 30%
improvement. The time ratio 9.9/2.33=4.3 indicates that there
are on average 4+ spinners waiting in the spin_lock loop for
each spinner in the mutex_spin_on_owner loop. Contention in
other locking functions also go down by quite a lot.

The table below shows the performance change of both patches 1 &
2 over patch 1 alone in other AIM7 workloads (at 8 nodes,
hyperthreading off).

+--------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
|   Workload   | mean % change | mean % change  | mean % change   |
|              | 10-100 users  | 200-1000 users | 1100-2000 users |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| alltests     |      0.0%     |     -0.8%      |     +0.6%       |
| five_sec     |     -0.3%     |     +0.8%      |     +0.8%       |
| high_systime |     +0.4%     |     +2.4%      |     +2.1%       |
| new_fserver  |     +0.1%     |    +14.1%      |    +34.2%       |
| shared       |     -0.5%     |     -0.3%      |     -0.4%       |
| short        |     -1.7%     |     -9.8%      |     -8.3%       |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

The short workload is the only one that shows a decline in
performance probably due to the spinner locking and queuing
overhead.

[myfluxi: On our 3.4 base, this patch series gives another
reproducable 3.5% advantage which is significantly above the +- 1-2% standard variation.

 Performance counter stats for 'hackbench 10  ' (10 runs):

       2885.888073 task-clock                #    3.565 CPUs utilized
 ( +-  0.75% )
             16429 context-switches          #    0.006 M/sec
 ( +-  7.47% )
              4234 CPU-migrations            #    0.001 M/sec
 ( +- 11.08% )
             21541 page-faults               #    0.007 M/sec
 ( +-  0.02% )
        5959743473 cycles                    #    2.065 GHz
 ( +-  0.70% ) [85.81%]
                 0 stalled-cycles-frontend   #    0.00% frontend cycles idle
 ( +-  0.00% ) [86.55%]
                 0 stalled-cycles-backend    #    0.00% backend  cycles idle
 ( +-  0.00% ) [88.53%]
        2018815336 instructions              #    0.34  insns per cycle
 ( +-  0.57% ) [88.31%]
         195542833 branches                  #   67.968 M/sec
 ( +-  0.80% ) [89.30%]
           4178524 branch-misses             #    2.14% of all branches
 ( +-  2.39% ) [76.06%]

       0.807441968 seconds time elapsed
 ( +-  1.86% )]

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Chandramouleeswaran Aswin <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Norton Scott J <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
mutex: Back out architecture specific check for negative mutex count

Linus suggested that probably all the supported architectures can
allow a negative mutex count without incorrect behavior, so we can
then back out the architecture specific change and allow the
mutex count to go to any negative number. That should further
reduce contention for non-x86 architecture.

Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Chandramouleeswaran Aswin <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Cc: Norton Scott J <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
mutex: save power with better cpu_relax

Use cpu_relaxed_read and cpu_read_relax to allow more architectures to be able
to "relax" instead of busy spinning.

Bug 1440421

Signed-off-by: Alex Van Brunt <avanbrunt@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Sumit Singh <sumsingh@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>