[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1470866872.17361.14.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:07:52 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: jason.low2@....com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
imre.deak@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, terry.rudd@....com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning
is enabled
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 11:44 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> Imre reported an issue where threads are getting starved when trying
> to acquire a mutex. Threads acquiring a mutex can get arbitrarily delayed
> sleeping on a mutex because other threads can continually steal the lock
> in the fastpath and/or through optimistic spinning.
>
> Waiman has developed patches that allow waiters to return to optimistic
> spinning, thus reducing the probability that starvation occurs. However,
> Imre still sees this starvation problem in the workloads when optimistic
> spinning is disabled.
>
> This patch adds an additional boolean to the mutex that gets used in
> the CONFIG_SMP && !CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER cases. The flag signifies
> whether or not other threads need to yield to a waiter and gets set
> when a waiter spends too much time waiting for the mutex. The threshold
> is currently set to 16 wakeups, and once the wakeup threshold is exceeded,
> other threads must yield to the top waiter. The flag gets cleared
> immediately after the top waiter acquires the mutex.
Just noticed that the patch title mentions "when spinning is enabled".
The title should really be:
"locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning is disabled"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists