Augustin Cavalier 02077ffc42 kernel/condition_variable: Atomicize ConditionVariableEntry and drop the lock.
Before 2019, the entire ConditionVariable system was "giant"-locked:
that is, there was a single global lock that all ConditionVariable
and ConditionVariableEntry operations had to pass through. This of
course was not very performant on multicore systems and when
ConditionVariables see significant use, so I reworked it then to have
more granular locking.

Those patches took a number of attempts to get right, as having two
objects in separate threads that can each access the other not turn
into a deadlock or use-after-free is not easy to say the least,
and the ultimate solution I came up with erased most of the performance
gains I initially saw on the first (partially broken) patchsets.

So I have wanted to revisit this and see if there was a better way
even since then. Recently there have been a few reports of
ConditionVariable-related panics (apparently double unlocks),
notably #16894, and so that was reason enough to actually revisit
this code and see if a better solution could be found.

Well, I think I have come up with one: after this commit, Entries
no longer have their own lock, and instead accesses to Entry members
are almost always atomic; and there is now a case where we spin inside
Variable::_NotifyLocked as well as one in Entry::_RemoveFromVariable.

This leads to somewhat simpler code (no more lock/unlock dance in Notify),
though it is significantly more difficult to understand the nuances of it,
so I have left a sizable number of comments explaining the intricacies
of the new logic.

Note: I initially tried 1000 for "tries", but on a few instances I did see
the panic hit, strangely. I don't think the code that is waited on can
be reasonably reduced any further, so I have just increased the limit to
10000 (which is still well below what spinlocks use.) Hopefully this suffices.

Quick benchmark, x86, compiling HaikuDepot and the mime_db in VMware, 2 cores:
before:
real    0m23.627s
user    0m25.152s
sys     0m7.319s

after:
real    0m23.962s
user    0m25.229s
sys     0m7.330s

Though I occasionally I saw sys times as low as 7.171s, so this seems
to be at least not a regression if not a definitive improvement.

Change-Id: Id042947976885cd5c1433cc4290bdf41b01ed10e
Reviewed-on: https://review.haiku-os.org/c/haiku/+/4727
Tested-by: Commit checker robot <no-reply+buildbot@haiku-os.org>
Reviewed-by: Alex von Gluck IV <kallisti5@unixzen.com>
2021-11-30 02:18:27 +00:00
..
2021-11-22 07:20:25 +00:00