Message-ID: <b647ffbd0901140318g7e4ccab6m9bf03e9ac6acf797@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:18:54 +0100
From:	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	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 -v9][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

2009/1/14 Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>:
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 18:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > So do a v10, and ask people to test.
>>
>> ---
>> Subject: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>> Date: Mon Jan 12 14:01:47 CET 2009
>>
>> Change mutex contention behaviour such that it will sometimes busy wait on
>> acquisition - moving its behaviour closer to that of spinlocks.
>>
>
> I've spent a bunch of time on this one, and noticed earlier today that I
> still had bits of CONFIG_FTRACE compiling.  I wasn't actually tracing
> anything, but it seems to have had a big performance hit.
>
> The bad news is the simple spin got much much faster, dbench 50 coming
> in at 1282MB/s instead of 580MB/s.  (other benchmarks give similar
> results)
>
> v10 is better that not spinning, but its in the 5-10% range.  So, I've
> been trying to find ways to close the gap, just to understand exactly
> where it is different.
>
> If I take out:
>        /*
>         * If there are pending waiters, join them.
>         */
>        if (!list_empty(&lock->wait_list))
>                break;
>
>
> v10 pops dbench 50 up to 1800MB/s.  The other tests soundly beat my
> spinning and aren't less fair.  But clearly this isn't a good solution.
>
> I tried a few variations, like only checking the wait list once before
> looping, which helps some.  Are there other suggestions on better tuning
> options?

(some thoughts/speculations)

Perhaps for highly-contanded mutexes the spinning implementation may
quickly degrade [*] to the non-spinning one (i.e. the current
sleep-wait mutex) and then just stay in this state until a moment of
time when there are no waiters  [**]  -- i.e.
list_empty(&lock->wait_list) == 1 and waiters can start spinning
again.

what may trigger [*]:

(1) obviously, an owner scheduling out.

Even if it happens rarely (otherwise, it's not a target scenario for
our optimization), due to the [**] it may take quite some time until
waiters are able to spin again.

let's say, waiters (almost) never block (and possibly, such cases
would be better off just using a spinlock after some refactoring, if
possible)

(2) need_resched() is triggered for one of the waiters.

(3) !owner && rt_task(p)

quite unlikely, but possible (there are 2 race windows).

Of course, the question is whether it really takes a noticeable amount
of time to get out of the [**] state.
I'd imagine it can be a case for highly-contended locks.

If this is the case indeed, then which of 1,2,3 gets triggered the most.

Have you tried removing need_resched() checks? So we kind of emulate
real spinlocks here.

>
> -chris
>

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
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