From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@novell.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:13:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1231780388.4371.185.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <496B6C23.8000808@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 18:13 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> One thing that worries me here is that the spinners will spin on a
> memory location in struct mutex, which means that the cacheline holding
> the mutex (which is likely to be under write activity from the owner)
> will be continuously shared by the spinners, slowing the owner down when
> it needs to unshare it. One way out of this is to spin on a location in
> struct mutex_waiter, and have the mutex owner touch it when it schedules
> out.
Yeah, that is what pure MCS locks do -- however I don't think its a
feasible strategy for this spin/sleep hybrid.
> So:
> - each task_struct has an array of currently owned mutexes, appended to
> by mutex_lock()
That's not going to fly I think. Lockdep does this but its very
expensive and has some issues. We're currently at 48 max owners, and
still some code paths manage to exceed that.
> - mutex waiters spin on mutex_waiter.wait, which they initialize to zero
> - when switching out of a task, walk the mutex list, and for each mutex,
> bump each waiter's wait variable, and clear the owner array
Which is O(n).
> - when unlocking a mutex, bump the nearest waiter's wait variable, and
> remove from the owner array
>
> Something similar might be done to spinlocks to reduce cacheline
> contention from spinners and the owner.
Spinlocks can use 'pure' MCS locks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-12 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-12 15:37 [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-12 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-12 16:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-12 16:45 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-12 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-12 17:14 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-12 17:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-12 17:30 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-12 17:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-12 17:33 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-01-12 18:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-12 16:13 ` Avi Kivity
2009-01-12 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-01-12 17:23 ` Avi Kivity
2009-01-12 17:32 ` Avi Kivity
2009-01-14 16:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-14 17:04 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-14 17:23 ` Avi Kivity
2009-01-15 0:50 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-13 15:15 ` [PATCH -v9][RFC] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-13 16:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-13 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-13 16:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-13 16:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-13 16:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-13 17:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-13 18:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-13 18:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-13 19:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 2:58 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-14 11:18 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-14 16:47 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-14 17:32 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-14 11:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 15:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-14 16:23 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-14 17:06 ` [PATCH -v11 delta] " Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 17:00 ` [PATCH -v11][RFC] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-14 17:18 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-14 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-15 0:46 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-15 7:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-15 7:52 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-14 18:33 ` [GIT PULL] adaptive spinning mutexes Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 18:40 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-15 9:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 18:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 19:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-15 17:44 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-01-15 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-15 18:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-15 18:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-15 19:26 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-15 20:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-15 21:04 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-15 22:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-16 13:32 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 13:32 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 13:32 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 13:57 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 13:57 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 13:57 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 18:37 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-01-16 18:37 ` Bill Davidsen
2009-01-16 0:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-16 1:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-16 1:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-16 14:07 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-16 3:03 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-15 18:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 18:53 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 19:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 19:36 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 19:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-14 20:21 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 20:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 20:44 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 20:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 20:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 21:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 21:35 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-14 23:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-15 0:55 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-14 21:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 21:50 ` Kay Sievers
2009-01-14 22:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-15 11:45 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-15 12:53 ` Chris Samuel
2009-01-14 19:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-14 19:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-15 8:41 ` [PATCH] mutex: set owner only once on acquisition Johannes Weiner
2009-01-15 8:56 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-13 18:12 ` [PATCH -v9][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning Ingo Molnar
2009-01-13 18:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-13 18:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-14 11:41 ` [PATCH -v8][RFC] " Folkert van Heusden
2009-01-14 11:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-14 11:42 ` Folkert van Heusden
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1231780388.4371.185.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=SDietrich@novell.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorreale@novell.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.