[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071118053626.GC21569@olive-green.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:36:26 -0600
From: Don Porter <porterde@...utexas.edu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Optimize zone allocator synchronization
Thank you all for your consideration and insightful responses to my
posting. I apologize for not responding sooner---I have been under a
deadline.
It seems clear that further investigation will be needed to understand
these performance numbers better.
To summarize, I understand that the following experiments will be helpful:
1) Instrument the allocation code to determine the common size/order
of the allocations for these workloads.
2) Try to integrate these changes with ticket spinlocks
3) Try placing the zone lock in its own cacheline
4) Look for single-threaded regressions (dd benchmark).
I'll do these at my first opportunity, hopefully within the next week.
Please let me know if I misunderstood any of your comments.
My intuition about the cost of ping-ponging the lock's cache line
certainly matched yours, so I was very surprised to see these
performance numbers.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:31:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> It's funny, Dave Miller and I were just talking about the possible
> reappearance of zone->lock contention with massively multi core and
> multi threaded CPUs. I think the right way to fix this in the long run
> if it turns into a real problem, is something like having a lock per
> MAX_ORDER block, and having CPUs prefer to allocate from different
> blocks. Anti-frag makes this pretty interesting to implement, but it
> will be possible.
As a bit of background, the zone lock is indeed one of the more
contended locks in my target workloads so it was no accident that I
was looking for ways to improve its scalability. I am quite
interested in Nick's ideas about how to split up the zone allocator's
synchronization.
Of course, these contention levels may not meet your definition of
"real problem" (~.1% of the execution time).
Best regards,
Don
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists