From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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>,
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 -v9][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:58:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1231901899.1709.18.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1231867314.7141.16.camel@twins>
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 18:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > So do a v10, and ask people to test.
>
> ---
> Subject: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Date: Mon Jan 12 14:01:47 CET 2009
>
> Change mutex contention behaviour such that it will sometimes busy wait on
> acquisition - moving its behaviour closer to that of spinlocks.
>
I've spent a bunch of time on this one, and noticed earlier today that I
still had bits of CONFIG_FTRACE compiling. I wasn't actually tracing
anything, but it seems to have had a big performance hit.
The bad news is the simple spin got much much faster, dbench 50 coming
in at 1282MB/s instead of 580MB/s. (other benchmarks give similar
results)
v10 is better that not spinning, but its in the 5-10% range. So, I've
been trying to find ways to close the gap, just to understand exactly
where it is different.
If I take out:
/*
* If there are pending waiters, join them.
*/
if (!list_empty(&lock->wait_list))
break;
v10 pops dbench 50 up to 1800MB/s. The other tests soundly beat my
spinning and aren't less fair. But clearly this isn't a good solution.
I tried a few variations, like only checking the wait list once before
looping, which helps some. Are there other suggestions on better tuning
options?
(I retested v7 and see similar results)
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-14 2:58 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
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 [this message]
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=1231901899.1709.18.camel@think.oraclecorp.com \
--to=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=SDietrich@novell.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--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=peterz@infradead.org \
--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.