[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190419075610.GN4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:56:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/16] locking/rwsem: Enable time-based spinning on
reader-owned rwsem
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:15:33AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/18/2019 09:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Check time threshold every 16 iterations to
> >> + * avoid calling sched_clock() too frequently.
> >> + * This will make the actual spinning time a
> >> + * bit more than that specified in the threshold.
> >> + */
> >> + else if (!(++loop & 0xf) &&
> >> + (sched_clock() > rspin_threshold)) {
> > Why is calling sched_clock() lots a problem?
>
> Actually I am more concern about the latency introduced by the
> sched_clock() call. BTW, I haven't done any measurement myself. Do you
> know how much cost the sched_clock() call is?
>
> If the cost is relatively high, the average latency period after the
> lock is free and the spinner is ready to do a trylock will increase.
Totally depends on the arch or course :/ For 'sane' x86 it is: RDTSC,
MUL; SHRD; SHR; ADD, which is plenty fast.
I know we have poll loops with sched_clock/local_clock in them, I just
can't seem to find any atm.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists