[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1407126313.3216.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 21:25:13 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] locking/rwsem: enable reader opt-spinning & writer
respin
On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 22:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> This patch set improves upon the rwsem optimistic spinning patch set
> from Davidlohr to enable better performing rwsem and more aggressive
> use of optimistic spinning.
>
> By using a microbenchmark running 1 million lock-unlock operations per
> thread on a 4-socket 40-core Westmere-EX x86-64 test machine running
> 3.16-rc7 based kernels, the following table shows the execution times
> with 2/10 threads running on different CPUs on the same socket where
> load is the number of pause instructions in the critical section:
>
> lock/r:w ratio # of threads Load:Execution Time (ms)
> -------------- ------------ ------------------------
> mutex 2 1:530.7, 5:406.0, 10:472.7
> mutex 10 1:1848 , 5:2046 , 10:4394
>
> Before patch:
> rwsem/0:1 2 1:339.4, 5:368.9, 10:394.0
> rwsem/1:1 2 1:2915 , 5:2621 , 10:2764
> rwsem/10:1 2 1:891.2, 5:779.2, 10:827.2
> rwsem/0:1 10 1:5618 , 5:5722 , 10:5683
> rwsem/1:1 10 1:14562, 5:14561, 10:14770
> rwsem/10:1 10 1:5914 , 5:5971 , 10:5912
>
> After patch:
> rwsem/0:1 2 1:161.1, 5:244.4, 10:271.4
> rwsem/1:1 2 1:188.8, 5:212.4, 10:312.9
> rwsem/10:1 2 1:168.8, 5:179.5, 10:209.8
> rwsem/0:1 10 1:1306 , 5:1733 , 10:1998
> rwsem/1:1 10 1:1512 , 5:1602 , 10:2093
> rwsem/10:1 10 1:1267 , 5:1458 , 10:2233
>
> % Change:
> rwsem/0:1 2 1:-52.5%, 5:-33.7%, 10:-31.1%
> rwsem/1:1 2 1:-93.5%, 5:-91.9%, 10:-88.7%
> rwsem/10:1 2 1:-81.1%, 5:-77.0%, 10:-74.6%
> rwsem/0:1 10 1:-76.8%, 5:-69.7%, 10:-64.8%
> rwsem/1:1 10 1:-89.6%, 5:-89.0%, 10:-85.8%
> rwsem/10:1 10 1:-78.6%, 5:-75.6%, 10:-62.2%
So at a very low level you see nicer results, which aren't really
translating to much of a significant impact at a higher level (aim7).
> It can be seen that there is dramatic reduction in the execution
> times. The new rwsem is now even faster than mutex whether it is all
> writers or a mixture of writers and readers.
>
> Running the AIM7 benchmarks on the same 40-core system (HT off),
> the performance improvements on some of the workloads were as follows:
>
> Workload Before Patch After Patch % Change
> -------- ------------ ----------- --------
> custom (200-1000) 446135 477404 +7.0%
> custom (1100-2000) 449665 484734 +7.8%
> high_systime 152437 154217 +1.2%
> (200-1000)
> high_systime 269695 278942 +3.4%
> (1100-2000)
I worry about complicating rwsems even _more_ than they are, specially
for such a marginal gain. You might want to try other workloads -- ie:
postgresql (pgbench), I normally get pretty useful data when dealing
with rwsems.
--
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