linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v6][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49660ED0.2000909@novell.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:33:52 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> * WOW *
>>     
>
> WOW indeed - and i can see a similar _brutal_ speedup on two separate 
> 16-way boxes as well:
>
>   16 CPUs, running 128 parallel test-tasks.
>
>   NO_OWNER_SPIN:
>   avg ops/sec:               281595
>
>   OWNER_SPIN:
>   avg ops/sec:               524791
>
> Da Killer!
>   

This jives with our findings back when we first looked at this
(200%-300% speedups in most benchmarks), so this is excellent that it is
yielding boosts here as well.

> Look at the performance counter stats:
>
>   
>>    12098.324578  task clock ticks     (msecs)
>>
>>            1081  CPU migrations       (events)
>>            7102  context switches     (events)
>>            2763  pagefaults           (events)
>>     
>
>   
>>    22280.283224  task clock ticks     (msecs)
>>
>>             117  CPU migrations       (events)
>>            5711  context switches     (events)
>>            2781  pagefaults           (events)
>>     
>
> We were able to spend twice as much CPU time and efficiently so - and we 
> did about 10% of the cross-CPU migrations as before (!).
>
> My (wild) guess is that the biggest speedup factor was perhaps this little 
> trick:
>
> +               if (need_resched())
> +                       break;
>
> this allows the spin-mutex to only waste CPU time if there's no work 
> around on that CPU. (i.e. if there's no other task that wants to run) The 
> moment there's some other task, we context-switch to it.
>   
Well, IIUC thats only true if the other task happens to preempt current,
which may not always be the case, right?  For instance, if current still
has timeslice left, etc.  I think the primary difference is actually the
reduction in the ctx switch rate, but its hard to say without looking at
detailed traces and more stats.  Either way, woohoo!

-Greg


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)