[PATCH v15 3/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Fri, 14 May 2021, Alex Kogan wrote:

>diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>index a816935d23d4..94d35507560c 100644
>--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>@@ -3515,6 +3515,16 @@
> 			NUMA balancing.
> 			Allowed values are enable and disable
>
>+	numa_spinlock=	[NUMA, PV_OPS] Select the NUMA-aware variant
>+			of spinlock. The options are:
>+			auto - Enable this variant if running on a multi-node
>+			machine in native environment.
>+			on  - Unconditionally enable this variant.

Is there any reason why the user would explicitly pass the on option
when the auto thing already does the multi-node check? Perhaps strange
numa topologies? Otherwise I would say it's not needed and the fewer
options we give the user for low level locking the better.

>+			off - Unconditionally disable this variant.
>+
>+			Not specifying this option is equivalent to
>+			numa_spinlock=auto.
>+
> 	numa_zonelist_order= [KNL, BOOT] Select zonelist order for NUMA.
> 			'node', 'default' can be specified
> 			This can be set from sysctl after boot.
>diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>index 0045e1b44190..819c3dad8afc 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>@@ -1564,6 +1564,26 @@ config NUMA
>
> 	  Otherwise, you should say N.
>
>+config NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS
>+	bool "Numa-aware spinlocks"
>+	depends on NUMA
>+	depends on QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
>+	depends on 64BIT
>+	# For now, we depend on PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS to make the patching work.
>+	# This is awkward, but hopefully would be resolved once static_call()
>+	# is available.
>+	depends on PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS

We now have static_call() - see 9183c3f9ed7.


>+	default y
>+	help
>+	  Introduce NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Access) awareness into
>+	  the slow path of spinlocks.
>+
>+	  In this variant of qspinlock, the kernel will try to keep the lock
>+	  on the same node, thus reducing the number of remote cache misses,
>+	  while trading some of the short term fairness for better performance.
>+
>+	  Say N if you want absolute first come first serve fairness.

This would also need a depends on !PREEMPT_RT, no? Raw spinlocks really want
the determinism.

Thanks,
Davidlohr