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;
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:23:04 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        daniel.wagner@siemens.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Problem] Cache line starvation
Message-ID: <20181003082304.GL26858@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180921120226.6xjgr4oiho22ex75@linutronix.de>
 <20180921122058.GB24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHkRjk4Vvv5rc+habecu2xPiFGZ37onRzy1kCnFcBH2115U8jQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHkRjk4Vvv5rc+habecu2xPiFGZ37onRzy1kCnFcBH2115U8jQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 08:51:50AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 13:22, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:02:26PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > We reproducibly observe cache line starvation on a Core2Duo E6850 (2
> > > cores), a i5-6400 SKL (4 cores) and on a NXP LS2044A ARM Cortex-A72 (4
> > > cores).
> > >
> > > The problem can be triggered with a v4.9-RT kernel by starting
> >
> > > Daniel reported that disabling ticket locks on 4.4 makes the problem go
> > > away, but he hasn't run a long time test yet and as we saw with 4.14 it can
> > > take quite a while.
> >
> > On 4.4 and 4.9 ARM64 still uses ticket locks. So I'm very interested to
> > know if the ticket locks on x86 really fix or just make it harder.
> >
> > I've been looking at qspinlock in the light of this and there is indeed
> > room for improvement. The ticket lock certainly is much simpler.
> 
> FWIW, in the qspinlock TLA+ model [1], if I replace the
> atomic_fetch_or() model with a try_cmpxchg loop, it violates the
> liveness properties with only 2 CPUs as one keeps locking/unlocking,
> hence changing the lock value, while the other repeatedly fails the
> cmpxchg. Your latest qspinlock patches seem to address this (couldn't
> get it to fail but the model is only sequentially consistent). Not
> sure that's what Sebastian is seeing but without your proposed
> qspinlock changes, ticket spinlocks may be a better bet for RT.

Right, and agreed. I did raise that point when you initially proposed
that fetch_or() for liveliness.