Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk12062016; d=mindspring.com;
  b=rNirikhvdsULK8gwoTw1Rxwd90cSvGXfqxBPigr0rVEe9eg3XBjQCvGY8mAwVFgVCDHLSXSNqR9ACB902CyjLFW4NI/mBiiSeatVcU83AAFlGNc7AwXcHRYopKN9XDHgXqdWYyQSyQ/poxIFrFpE0lVnOawDUwG5pbkPZDjdSzjISusT1wiQLytwBTC5RWKtCVMDGc0AreX7eW6RNYLfOJ+BUZYPGmevyPHHvA9+0LN4Lk5e77HKMWX0DpLy/vqDlMgSTQtUuYYl3MLF5m/XGV3q8+FnDlYCfYS22ryODjraNQZ2zEjfpkAj+98orlb9dLGWfdoRuBf6lDg/mdbKPQ==;
  h=Received:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Language:Thread-Index:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
From:   "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
To:     "'Jeff Layton'" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        "'J. Bruce Fields'" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "'NeilBrown'" <neilb@suse.com>
Cc:     "'Alexander Viro'" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "'Martin Wilck'" <mwilck@suse.de>
References: <153369219467.12605.13472423449508444601.stgit@noble>         <20180808195445.GD23873@fieldses.org> <20180808200912.GE23873@fieldses.org>         <20180808212832.GF23873@fieldses.org> <04ffa27c29d2bff8bd9cb9b6d4ea6b6fd3969b6c.camel@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <04ffa27c29d2bff8bd9cb9b6d4ea6b6fd3969b6c.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:34:31 -0700
Message-ID: <01c401d42f70$5c034db0$1409e910$@mindspring.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQGA9keEcMCkmDAsuHSuCoEfEmhAOAG1/rx6AXpKEjkB2puGxgJiY3FdpSGJP4A=
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 17:28 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 04:09:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 03:54:45PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:51:07AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > If you have a many-core machine, and have many threads all
> > > > > wanting to briefly lock a give file (udev is known to do =
this),
> > > > > you can get quite poor performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > When one thread releases a lock, it wakes up all other threads
> > > > > that are waiting (classic thundering-herd) - one will get the
> > > > > lock and the others go to sleep.
> > > > > When you have few cores, this is not very noticeable: by the
> > > > > time the 4th or 5th thread gets enough CPU time to try to =
claim
> > > > > the lock, the earlier threads have claimed it, done what was =
needed, and
> released.
> > > > > With 50+ cores, the contention can easily be measured.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patchset creates a tree of pending lock request in which
> > > > > siblings don't conflict and each lock request does conflict =
with its parent.
> > > > > When a lock is released, only requests which don't conflict =
with
> > > > > each other a woken.
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure you aren't depending on the (incorrect) assumption
> > > > that "X blocks Y" is a transitive relation?
> > > >
> > > > OK I should be able to answer that question myself, my patience
> > > > for code-reading is at a real low this afternoon....
> > >
> > > In other words, is there the possibility of a tree of, say,
> > > exclusive locks with (offset, length) like:
> > >
> > > 	(0, 2) waiting on (1, 2) waiting on (2, 2) waiting on (0, 4)
> > >
> > > and when waking (0, 4) you could wake up (2, 2) but not (0, 2),
> > > leaving a process waiting without there being an actual conflict.
> >
> > After batting it back and forth with Jeff on IRC....  So do I
> > understand right that when we wake a waiter, we leave its own tree =
of
> > waiters intact, and when it wakes if it finds a conflict it just =
adds
> > it lock (with tree of waiters) in to the tree of the conflicting =
lock?
> >
> > If so then yes I think that depends on the transitivity
> > assumption--you're assuming that finding a conflict between the root
> > of the tree and a lock proves that all the other members of the tree
> > also conflict.
> >
> > So maybe this example works.  (All locks are exclusive and written
> > (offset, length), X->Y means X is waiting on Y.)
> >
> > 	process acquires (0,3)
> > 	2nd process requests (1,2), is put to sleep.
> > 	3rd process requests (0,2), is put to sleep.
> >
> > 	The tree of waiters now looks like (0,2)->(1,2)->(0,3)
> >
> > 	(0,3) is unlocked.
> > 	A 4th process races in and locks (2,2).
> > 	The 2nd process wakes up, sees this new conflict, and waits on
> > 	(2,2).  Now the tree looks like (0,2)->(1,2)->(2,2), and (0,2)
> > 	is waiting for no reason.
> >
>=20
> That seems like a legit problem.
>=20
> One possible fix might be to have the waiter on (1,2) walk down the =
entire
> subtree and wake up any waiter that is waiting on a lock that doesn't =
conflict
> with the lock on which it's waiting.
>=20
> So, before the task waiting on 1,2 goes back to sleep to wait on 2,2, =
it could
> walk down its entire fl_blocked subtree and wake up anything waiting =
on a lock
> that doesn't conflict with (2,2).
>=20
> That's potentially an expensive operation, but:
>=20
> a) the task is going back to sleep anyway, so letting it do a little =
extra work
> before that should be no big deal
>=20
> b) it's probably still cheaper than waking up the whole herd

Yea, I think so.

Now here's another question... How does this new logic play with Open =
File Description Locks? Should still be ok since there's a thread =
waiting on each of those.

Frank