[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080813104445.GA24632@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:44:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pardo <pardo@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hugh@...itas.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, briangrant@...gle.com,
cgd@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: pthread_create() slow for many threads; also time to revisit
64b context switch optimization?
* Pardo <pardo@...gle.com> wrote:
> As example, in one case creating new threads goes from about 35,000
> cycles up to about 25,000,000 cycles -- which is under 100 threads per
> second. [...]
> Various things would address the slow pthread_create(). Choices
> include:
> - Be more platform-aware about when to use MAP_32BIT.
> - Abandon use of MAP_32BIT entirely, with worse performance on some machines.
> - Change the mmap() algorithm to be faster on allocation failure
> (avoid a linear search of vmas).
Sigh, unfortunately MAP_32BIT use in 64-bit apps for stacks was
apparently created without foresight about what would happen in the MM
when thread stacks exhaust 4GB.
The problem is that MAP_32BIT is used both as a performance hack for
64-bit apps and as an ABI compat mechanism for 32-bit apps. So we cannot
just start disregarding MAP_32BIT in the kernel - we'd break 32-bit
compat apps and/or compat 32-bit libraries.
There are various other options to solve the (severe!) performance
breakdown:
1- glibc could start not using MAP_32BIT for 64-bit thread stacks (the
boxes where context-switching is slow probably do not matter all that
much anymore - they were very slow at everything 64-bit anyway)
Pros: easiest solution.
Cons: slows down the affected machines and needs a new glibc.
2- We could introduce a new MAP_64BIT_STACK flag which we could
propagate it into MAP_32BIT on those old CPUs. It would be
disregarded on modern CPUs and thread stacks would be 64-bit.
Pros: cleanest solution.
Cons: needs both new glibc and new kernel to take advantage of.
3- We could detect the first-4G-is-full condition and cache it. Problem
is, there will likely be small holes in it so it's rather hard to do
it in a sane way. Also, every munmap() of a thread stack will
invalidate this - triggering a slow linear search every now and then.
Pros: only needs a new kernel to take advantage of.
Cons: is the most complex and messiest solution with no clear
benefit to other workloads. Also, does not 100% solve the
performance problem and prolongues the 4GB stack threads
hack.
i'd go for 1) or 2).
Ingo
--
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