Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:45:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        "Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
        "Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path
Message-ID: <20130928064551.GC16660@gmail.com>
References: <1380308424-31011-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
 <CA+55aFxXeQ69B1bfrO+0QtBqm0gt688LOshx=ppNjch10JF8FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1380310766.2222.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
 <1380318558.3467.159.camel@schen9-DESK>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1380318558.3467.159.camel@schen9-DESK>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1983
Lines: 46


* Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 12:39 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 12:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On a large NUMA machine, it is entirely possible that a fairly large
> > > > number of threads are queuing up in the ticket spinlock queue to do
> > > > the wakeup operation. In fact, only one will be needed.  This patch
> > > > tries to reduce spinlock contention by doing just that.
> > > >
> > > > A new wakeup field is added to the rwsem structure. This field is
> > > > set on entry to rwsem_wake() and __rwsem_do_wake() to mark that a
> > > > thread is pending to do the wakeup call. It is cleared on exit from
> > > > those functions.
> > > 
> > > Ok, this is *much* simpler than adding the new MCS spinlock, so I'm
> > > wondering what the performance difference between the two are.
> > 
> > Both approaches should be complementary. The idea of optimistic spinning
> > in rwsems is to avoid putting putting the writer on the wait queue -
> > reducing contention and giving a greater chance for the rwsem
> > to get acquired. Waiman's approach is once the blocking actually occurs,
> > and at this point I'm not sure how this will affect writer stealing
> > logic.
> > 
> 
> I agree with the view that the two approaches are complementary to each 
> other.  They address different bottleneck areas in the rwsem. Here're 
> the performance numbers for exim workload compared to a vanilla kernel.
> 
> Waimain's patch:        +2.0%
> Alex+Tim's patchset:    +4.8%
> Waiman+Alex+Tim:        +5.3%

I think I'd like to see a combo series submitted :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/