WSL2-Linux-Kernel/include/linux/ptr_ring.h

641 строка
15 KiB
C
Исходник Обычный вид История

/*
* Definitions for the 'struct ptr_ring' datastructure.
*
* Author:
* Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
*
* Copyright (C) 2016 Red Hat, Inc.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
* Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
* option) any later version.
*
* This is a limited-size FIFO maintaining pointers in FIFO order, with
* one CPU producing entries and another consuming entries from a FIFO.
*
* This implementation tries to minimize cache-contention when there is a
* single producer and a single consumer CPU.
*/
#ifndef _LINUX_PTR_RING_H
#define _LINUX_PTR_RING_H 1
#ifdef __KERNEL__
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/cache.h>
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <linux/cache.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <asm/errno.h>
#endif
struct ptr_ring {
int producer ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
spinlock_t producer_lock;
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
int consumer_head ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; /* next valid entry */
int consumer_tail; /* next entry to invalidate */
spinlock_t consumer_lock;
/* Shared consumer/producer data */
/* Read-only by both the producer and the consumer */
int size ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; /* max entries in queue */
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
int batch; /* number of entries to consume in a batch */
void **queue;
};
/* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
* for example cpu_relax(). If ring is ever resized, callers must hold
* producer_lock - see e.g. ptr_ring_full. Otherwise, if callers don't hold
* producer_lock, the next call to __ptr_ring_produce may fail.
*/
static inline bool __ptr_ring_full(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
return r->queue[r->producer];
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_full(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
bool ret;
spin_lock(&r->producer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_full(r);
spin_unlock(&r->producer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_full_irq(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
bool ret;
spin_lock_irq(&r->producer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_full(r);
spin_unlock_irq(&r->producer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_full_any(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
unsigned long flags;
bool ret;
spin_lock_irqsave(&r->producer_lock, flags);
ret = __ptr_ring_full(r);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->producer_lock, flags);
return ret;
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_full_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
bool ret;
spin_lock_bh(&r->producer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_full(r);
spin_unlock_bh(&r->producer_lock);
return ret;
}
/* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
* for example cpu_relax(). Callers must hold producer_lock.
*/
static inline int __ptr_ring_produce(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
{
if (unlikely(!r->size) || r->queue[r->producer])
return -ENOSPC;
r->queue[r->producer++] = ptr;
if (unlikely(r->producer >= r->size))
r->producer = 0;
return 0;
}
/*
* Note: resize (below) nests producer lock within consumer lock, so if you
* consume in interrupt or BH context, you must disable interrupts/BH when
* calling this.
*/
static inline int ptr_ring_produce(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
{
int ret;
spin_lock(&r->producer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
spin_unlock(&r->producer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_produce_irq(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
{
int ret;
spin_lock_irq(&r->producer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
spin_unlock_irq(&r->producer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_produce_any(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
{
unsigned long flags;
int ret;
spin_lock_irqsave(&r->producer_lock, flags);
ret = __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->producer_lock, flags);
return ret;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_produce_bh(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr)
{
int ret;
spin_lock_bh(&r->producer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
spin_unlock_bh(&r->producer_lock);
return ret;
}
/* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
* for example cpu_relax(). Callers must take consumer_lock
* if they dereference the pointer - see e.g. PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL.
* If ring is never resized, and if the pointer is merely
* tested, there's no need to take the lock - see e.g. __ptr_ring_empty.
*/
static inline void *__ptr_ring_peek(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
if (likely(r->size))
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
return r->queue[r->consumer_head];
return NULL;
}
/* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
* for example cpu_relax(). Callers must take consumer_lock
* if the ring is ever resized - see e.g. ptr_ring_empty.
*/
static inline bool __ptr_ring_empty(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
return !__ptr_ring_peek(r);
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_empty(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
bool ret;
spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_empty(r);
spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_empty_irq(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
bool ret;
spin_lock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_empty(r);
spin_unlock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_empty_any(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
unsigned long flags;
bool ret;
spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
ret = __ptr_ring_empty(r);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
return ret;
}
static inline bool ptr_ring_empty_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
bool ret;
spin_lock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_empty(r);
spin_unlock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
return ret;
}
/* Must only be called after __ptr_ring_peek returned !NULL */
static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
/* Fundamentally, what we want to do is update consumer
* index and zero out the entry so producer can reuse it.
* Doing it naively at each consume would be as simple as:
* r->queue[r->consumer++] = NULL;
* if (unlikely(r->consumer >= r->size))
* r->consumer = 0;
* but that is suboptimal when the ring is full as producer is writing
* out new entries in the same cache line. Defer these updates until a
* batch of entries has been consumed.
*/
int head = r->consumer_head++;
/* Once we have processed enough entries invalidate them in
* the ring all at once so producer can reuse their space in the ring.
* We also do this when we reach end of the ring - not mandatory
* but helps keep the implementation simple.
*/
if (unlikely(r->consumer_head - r->consumer_tail >= r->batch ||
r->consumer_head >= r->size)) {
/* Zero out entries in the reverse order: this way we touch the
* cache line that producer might currently be reading the last;
* producer won't make progress and touch other cache lines
* besides the first one until we write out all entries.
*/
while (likely(head >= r->consumer_tail))
r->queue[head--] = NULL;
r->consumer_tail = r->consumer_head;
}
if (unlikely(r->consumer_head >= r->size)) {
r->consumer_head = 0;
r->consumer_tail = 0;
}
}
static inline void *__ptr_ring_consume(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
void *ptr;
ptr = __ptr_ring_peek(r);
if (ptr)
__ptr_ring_discard_one(r);
return ptr;
}
static inline int __ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
void **array, int n)
{
void *ptr;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
if (!ptr)
break;
array[i] = ptr;
}
return i;
}
/*
* Note: resize (below) nests producer lock within consumer lock, so if you
* call this in interrupt or BH context, you must disable interrupts/BH when
* producing.
*/
static inline void *ptr_ring_consume(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
void *ptr;
spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
return ptr;
}
static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_irq(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
void *ptr;
spin_lock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
spin_unlock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
return ptr;
}
static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_any(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
unsigned long flags;
void *ptr;
spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
return ptr;
}
static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
{
void *ptr;
spin_lock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
spin_unlock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
return ptr;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
void **array, int n)
{
int ret;
spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_irq(struct ptr_ring *r,
void **array, int n)
{
int ret;
spin_lock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
spin_unlock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
return ret;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_any(struct ptr_ring *r,
void **array, int n)
{
unsigned long flags;
int ret;
spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
return ret;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_bh(struct ptr_ring *r,
void **array, int n)
{
int ret;
spin_lock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
spin_unlock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
return ret;
}
/* Cast to structure type and call a function without discarding from FIFO.
* Function must return a value.
* Callers must take consumer_lock.
*/
#define __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL(r, f) ((f)(__ptr_ring_peek(r)))
#define PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL(r, f) ({ \
typeof((f)(NULL)) __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
\
spin_lock(&(r)->consumer_lock); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v = __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL(r, f); \
spin_unlock(&(r)->consumer_lock); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
})
#define PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_IRQ(r, f) ({ \
typeof((f)(NULL)) __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
\
spin_lock_irq(&(r)->consumer_lock); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v = __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL(r, f); \
spin_unlock_irq(&(r)->consumer_lock); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
})
#define PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_BH(r, f) ({ \
typeof((f)(NULL)) __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
\
spin_lock_bh(&(r)->consumer_lock); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v = __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL(r, f); \
spin_unlock_bh(&(r)->consumer_lock); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
})
#define PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_ANY(r, f) ({ \
typeof((f)(NULL)) __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
unsigned long __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_f;\
\
spin_lock_irqsave(&(r)->consumer_lock, __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_f); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v = __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL(r, f); \
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(r)->consumer_lock, __PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_f); \
__PTR_RING_PEEK_CALL_v; \
})
static inline void **__ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp)
{
return kcalloc(size, sizeof(void *), gfp);
}
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
static inline void __ptr_ring_set_size(struct ptr_ring *r, int size)
{
r->size = size;
r->batch = SMP_CACHE_BYTES * 2 / sizeof(*(r->queue));
/* We need to set batch at least to 1 to make logic
* in __ptr_ring_discard_one work correctly.
* Batching too much (because ring is small) would cause a lot of
* burstiness. Needs tuning, for now disable batching.
*/
if (r->batch > r->size / 2 || !r->batch)
r->batch = 1;
}
static inline int ptr_ring_init(struct ptr_ring *r, int size, gfp_t gfp)
{
r->queue = __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc(size, gfp);
if (!r->queue)
return -ENOMEM;
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
__ptr_ring_set_size(r, size);
r->producer = r->consumer_head = r->consumer_tail = 0;
spin_lock_init(&r->producer_lock);
spin_lock_init(&r->consumer_lock);
return 0;
}
/*
* Return entries into ring. Destroy entries that don't fit.
*
* Note: this is expected to be a rare slow path operation.
*
* Note: producer lock is nested within consumer lock, so if you
* resize you must make sure all uses nest correctly.
* In particular if you consume ring in interrupt or BH context, you must
* disable interrupts/BH when doing so.
*/
static inline void ptr_ring_unconsume(struct ptr_ring *r, void **batch, int n,
void (*destroy)(void *))
{
unsigned long flags;
int head;
spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
spin_lock(&r->producer_lock);
if (!r->size)
goto done;
/*
* Clean out buffered entries (for simplicity). This way following code
* can test entries for NULL and if not assume they are valid.
*/
head = r->consumer_head - 1;
while (likely(head >= r->consumer_tail))
r->queue[head--] = NULL;
r->consumer_tail = r->consumer_head;
/*
* Go over entries in batch, start moving head back and copy entries.
* Stop when we run into previously unconsumed entries.
*/
while (n) {
head = r->consumer_head - 1;
if (head < 0)
head = r->size - 1;
if (r->queue[head]) {
/* This batch entry will have to be destroyed. */
goto done;
}
r->queue[head] = batch[--n];
r->consumer_tail = r->consumer_head = head;
}
done:
/* Destroy all entries left in the batch. */
while (n)
destroy(batch[--n]);
spin_unlock(&r->producer_lock);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
}
static inline void **__ptr_ring_swap_queue(struct ptr_ring *r, void **queue,
int size, gfp_t gfp,
void (*destroy)(void *))
{
int producer = 0;
void **old;
void *ptr;
while ((ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r)))
if (producer < size)
queue[producer++] = ptr;
else if (destroy)
destroy(ptr);
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
__ptr_ring_set_size(r, size);
r->producer = producer;
ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are writing to a shared cache line. To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. We do the write out in the reverse order to keep producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long as possible. Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code a bit simpler. What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, current patch simply reduces the batching. Notes: - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees that the following call to produce will succeed. No users seem to assume that. - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: users that would previously send interrups to the producer to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only need to do this once in a batch. Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not implemented yet. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
2017-04-07 08:25:09 +03:00
r->consumer_head = 0;
r->consumer_tail = 0;
old = r->queue;
r->queue = queue;
return old;
}
/*
* Note: producer lock is nested within consumer lock, so if you
* resize you must make sure all uses nest correctly.
* In particular if you consume ring in interrupt or BH context, you must
* disable interrupts/BH when doing so.
*/
static inline int ptr_ring_resize(struct ptr_ring *r, int size, gfp_t gfp,
void (*destroy)(void *))
{
unsigned long flags;
void **queue = __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc(size, gfp);
void **old;
if (!queue)
return -ENOMEM;
spin_lock_irqsave(&(r)->consumer_lock, flags);
spin_lock(&(r)->producer_lock);
old = __ptr_ring_swap_queue(r, queue, size, gfp, destroy);
spin_unlock(&(r)->producer_lock);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(r)->consumer_lock, flags);
kfree(old);
return 0;
}
/*
* Note: producer lock is nested within consumer lock, so if you
* resize you must make sure all uses nest correctly.
* In particular if you consume ring in interrupt or BH context, you must
* disable interrupts/BH when doing so.
*/
static inline int ptr_ring_resize_multiple(struct ptr_ring **rings,
unsigned int nrings,
int size,
gfp_t gfp, void (*destroy)(void *))
{
unsigned long flags;
void ***queues;
int i;
queues = kmalloc_array(nrings, sizeof(*queues), gfp);
if (!queues)
goto noqueues;
for (i = 0; i < nrings; ++i) {
queues[i] = __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc(size, gfp);
if (!queues[i])
goto nomem;
}
for (i = 0; i < nrings; ++i) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&(rings[i])->consumer_lock, flags);
spin_lock(&(rings[i])->producer_lock);
queues[i] = __ptr_ring_swap_queue(rings[i], queues[i],
size, gfp, destroy);
spin_unlock(&(rings[i])->producer_lock);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(rings[i])->consumer_lock, flags);
}
for (i = 0; i < nrings; ++i)
kfree(queues[i]);
kfree(queues);
return 0;
nomem:
while (--i >= 0)
kfree(queues[i]);
kfree(queues);
noqueues:
return -ENOMEM;
}
static inline void ptr_ring_cleanup(struct ptr_ring *r, void (*destroy)(void *))
{
void *ptr;
if (destroy)
while ((ptr = ptr_ring_consume(r)))
destroy(ptr);
kfree(r->queue);
}
#endif /* _LINUX_PTR_RING_H */