| 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); |
| void mutex_lock_nested(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int subclass); |
| int mutex_lock_interruptible_nested(struct mutex *lock, |
| unsigned int subclass); |
| int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock); |