[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <557704DA.9070106@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:23:06 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when
setting _QW_WAITING
On 06/09/2015 08:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:20:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
>> in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
>> causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
>> patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
>> with new readers.
> This is very narrow, would not the main cost still be the cacheline
> transfers?
>
> Do you have any numbers to back this? I would feel much better about
> this if there's real numbers attached.
I have just sent out a v2 patch with the microbenchmark data for the 2nd
patch. The extra cmpxchg() because of reader contention should have
about the same cost of a cacheline miss. The performance gain depends on
how often this kind of reader contention happens.
Regards,
Longman
--
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