vppinfra: refactor clib_rwlock_t to use single condition variable

Previous implementation of clib_rwlock_t used two spinlocks: one
writer lock, and one to guard the counter for the number of readers.
This implementation uses a single condition variable rw_cnt which
has the following properties:

if a writer has the rwlock, rw_cnt = -1
if the rwlock is free, rw_cnt = 0
otherwise, rw_cnt > 0 and rw_cnt = number of readers
rw_cnt will never be less than -1

Benchmarking:
The results below are the cycle counts from test_rwlock.c, configured so
that for 10000 iterations, 6 reader and 6 writer threads on separate cores
are spawned such that each writer thread increments a global counter
10000 times in each iteration. For Taishan, 4 reader and 4 writer
threads are spawned in each test.

x86 Xeon old rwlock: 12.473e8, 11.655e8, 13.201e8, 11.347e8, 13.182e8
x86 Xeon new rwlock: 5.881e8, 5.796e8, 6.536e8, 5.540e8, 5.890e8
Aarch64 ThX2* old rwlock: 9.263e7, 8.933e7, 9.074e7, 8.979e7, 9.378e7
Aarch64 ThX2* new rwlock: 7.221e7, 8.107e7, 7.515e7, 7.672e7, 7.386e7
A72 old rwlock: 3.268e6, 3.200e6, 3.086e6, 3.176e6, 3.170e6
A72 new rwlock: 1.261e6, 1.288e6, 1.251e6, 1.229e6, 1.234e6

*ThunderX2 used additional gcc options "-march=armv8.1-a+crc+crypto+lse"

Type: refactor

Change-Id: I7c347d3037b36205ab532cbcb52a374c846eb275
Signed-off-by: Jason Zhang <jason.zhang2@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Lijian Zhang <Lijian.Zhang@arm.com>

1 files changed, 19 insertions, 24 deletions

diff --git a/src/vppinfra/lock.h b/src/vppinfra/lock.h
index c1f0b87dfc6..49e849b1bdd 100644
--- a/src/vppinfra/lock.h
+++ b/src/vppinfra/lock.h
@@ -118,9 +118,8 @@ clib_spinlock_unlock_if_init (clib_spinlock_t * p)
 typedef struct clib_rw_lock_
 {
   CLIB_CACHE_LINE_ALIGN_MARK (cacheline0);
-  volatile u32 n_readers;
-  volatile u32 n_readers_lock;
-  volatile u32 writer_lock;
+  /* -1 when W lock held, > 0 when R lock held */
+  volatile i32 rw_cnt;
 #if CLIB_DEBUG > 0
   pid_t pid;
   uword thread_index;
@@ -148,41 +147,37 @@ clib_rwlock_free (clib_rwlock_t * p)
 always_inline void
 clib_rwlock_reader_lock (clib_rwlock_t * p)
 {
-  while (clib_atomic_test_and_set (&(*p)->n_readers_lock))
-    CLIB_PAUSE ();
-
-  (*p)->n_readers += 1;
-  if ((*p)->n_readers == 1)
+  i32 cnt;
+  do
     {
-      while (clib_atomic_test_and_set (&(*p)->writer_lock))
+      /* rwlock held by a writer */
+      while ((cnt = clib_atomic_load_relax_n (&(*p)->rw_cnt)) < 0)
 	CLIB_PAUSE ();
     }
-  clib_atomic_release (&(*p)->n_readers_lock);
+  while (!clib_atomic_cmp_and_swap_acq_relax_n
+	 (&(*p)->rw_cnt, &cnt, cnt + 1, 1));
   CLIB_LOCK_DBG (p);
 }
 
 always_inline void
 clib_rwlock_reader_unlock (clib_rwlock_t * p)
 {
-  ASSERT ((*p)->n_readers > 0);
+  ASSERT ((*p)->rw_cnt > 0);
   CLIB_LOCK_DBG_CLEAR (p);
-
-  while (clib_atomic_test_and_set (&(*p)->n_readers_lock))
-    CLIB_PAUSE ();
-
-  (*p)->n_readers -= 1;
-  if ((*p)->n_readers == 0)
-    {
-      clib_atomic_release (&(*p)->writer_lock);
-    }
-  clib_atomic_release (&(*p)->n_readers_lock);
+  clib_atomic_fetch_sub_rel (&(*p)->rw_cnt, 1);
 }
 
 always_inline void
 clib_rwlock_writer_lock (clib_rwlock_t * p)
 {
-  while (clib_atomic_test_and_set (&(*p)->writer_lock))
-    CLIB_PAUSE ();
+  i32 cnt = 0;
+  do
+    {
+      /* rwlock held by writer or reader(s) */
+      while ((cnt = clib_atomic_load_relax_n (&(*p)->rw_cnt)) != 0)
+	CLIB_PAUSE ();
+    }
+  while (!clib_atomic_cmp_and_swap_acq_relax_n (&(*p)->rw_cnt, &cnt, -1, 1));
   CLIB_LOCK_DBG (p);
 }
 
@@ -190,7 +185,7 @@ always_inline void
 clib_rwlock_writer_unlock (clib_rwlock_t * p)
 {
   CLIB_LOCK_DBG_CLEAR (p);
-  clib_atomic_release (&(*p)->writer_lock);
+  clib_atomic_release (&(*p)->rw_cnt);
 }
 
 #endif