From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@in.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Lock free fd lookup
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:16:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040717031645.GM3411@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3671.1090031334@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:19:36 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> That's a large assumption. NUMA hardware typically violates it.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> True, which is why I mentioned it. However I suspect that you read
> something into that paragraph which was not intended.
The NUMA issue is the only caveat I saw. I guess I just wanted to
mention it by name.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Just reading the lockfree list and the structures on the list does not
> suffer from any NUMA problems, because reading does not perform any
> global updates at all. The SMP starvation problem only kicks in when
> multiple concurrent updates are being done. Even with multiple
> writers, one of the writers is guaranteed to succeed every time, so
> over time all the write operations will proceed, subject to fair access
> to exclusive cache lines.
The only methods I can think of to repair this (basically queueing) are
not busywait-free.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Lockfree reads with Moir's algorithms require extra memory bandwidth.
> In the absence of updates, all the cache lines end up in shared state.
> That reduces to local memory bandwidth for the (hopefully) common case
> of lots of readers and few writers. Lockfree code is nicely suited to
> the same class of problem that RCU addresses, but without the reader
> vs. writer starvation problems.
I suppose it's worth refining the starvation claim to delaying freeing
memory as opposed to readers causing writers to busywait indefinitely.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Writer vs. writer starvation on NUMA is a lot harder. I don't know of
> any algorithm that handles lists with lots of concurrent updates and
> also scales well on large cpus, unless the underlying hardware is fair
> in its handling of exclusive cache lines.
Well, neither do I. =)
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-17 3:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-14 4:53 [RFC] Refcounting of objects part of a lockfree collection Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-14 4:56 ` [RFC] Lock free fd lookup Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-14 15:17 ` Chris Wright
2004-07-15 14:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-07-15 16:10 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-15 16:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-07-15 16:34 ` Chris Wright
2004-07-16 5:38 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-16 6:27 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 0:55 ` Keith Owens
2004-07-17 1:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 2:12 ` Keith Owens
2004-07-17 2:34 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 2:28 ` Keith Owens
2004-07-17 3:16 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-07-17 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2004-07-14 7:07 ` [RFC] Refcounting of objects part of a lockfree collection Greg KH
2004-07-14 8:26 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 14:26 ` Greg KH
2004-07-14 15:22 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 17:03 ` Greg KH
2004-07-14 17:49 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 18:03 ` Greg KH
2004-07-15 6:21 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-15 6:56 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 8:57 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-14 17:08 ` Greg KH
2004-07-14 18:17 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-15 8:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-15 9:36 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-16 14:32 ` Greg KH
2004-07-16 15:50 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-17 8:50 [RFC] Lock free fd lookup Manfred Spraul
2004-07-17 9:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 19:17 Albert Cahalan
2004-07-29 0:14 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=20040717031645.GM3411@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=jbarnes@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=kiran@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.