Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:36:30 -0800
From:	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>
To:	"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	"Bill Huey (hui)" <bill.huey@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
	dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
	gregkh@...e.de, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 08/14] add a loop counter based timeout mechanism


On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 13:36 -0700, Peter W. Morreale wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 11:55 -0800, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> > 
> > In high-contention, short-hold time situations, it may even make sense
> > to have multiple CPUs with multiple waiters spinning, depending on
> > hold-time vs. time to put a waiter to sleep and wake them up.
> > 
> > The wake-up side could also walk ahead on the queue, and bring up
> > spinners from sleeping, so that they are all ready to go when the lock
> > flips green for them.
> > 
> 
> I did try an attempt at this one time.  The logic was merely if the
> pending owner was running, wakeup the next waiter.  The results were
> terrible for the benchmarks used, as compared to the current
> implementation. 

Yup, but you cut the CONTEXT where I said:

"for very large SMP systems"

Specifically, what I mean, is an SMP system, where I have enough CPUs to
do this:

let (t_Tcs) be the time to lock, transition and unlock an un-contended
critical section (i.e. the one that I am the pending waiter for).

let (t_W) be the time to wake up a sleeping task.

and let (t_W > t_Tcs)

Then, "for very large SMP systems"

if 

S = (t_W / t_Tcs), 

then S designates the number of tasks to transition a critical section
before the first sleeper would wake up.

and the number of CPUs > S.

The time for an arbitrary number of tasks N > S which are all competing
for lock L, to transition a critical section (T_N_cs), approaches:

T_N_cs = (N * t_W) 

if you have only 1 task spinning.

but if you can have 

N tasks spinning, (T_N_cs) approaches:

T_N_cs = (N * t_Tcs)

and with the premise, that t_W > t_Tcs, you should see a dramatic
throughput improvement when running PREEMPT_RT on VERY LARGE SMP
systems.

I want to disclaim, that the math above is very much simplified, but I
hope its sufficient to demonstrate the concept.

I have to acknowledge Ingo's comments, that this is all suspect until
proven to make a positive difference in "non-marketing" workloads.

I personally *think* we are past that already, and the adaptive concept
can and will be extended and scaled as M-socket and N-core based SMP
proliferates into to larger grid-based systems. But there is plenty more
to do to prove it.

(someone send me a 1024 CPU box and a wind-powered-generator)

Sven



> 
> What this meant was that virtually every unlock performed a wakeup, if
> not for the new pending owner, than the next-in-line waiter. 
> 
> My impression at the time was that the contention for the rq lock is
> significant, regardless of even if the task being woken up was already
> running.  
> 
> I can generate numbers if that helps.
> 
> -PWM
> 
> 
> 

--
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