All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: "lkml, " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@novell.com>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:10:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB400AA.7090408@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB3D90C.3030108@us.ibm.com>

CC'ing the right Chris this time.

Darren Hart wrote:
> I'm looking at some adaptive spinning with futexes as a way to help 
> reduce the dependence on sched_yield() to implement userspace spinlocks. 
> Chris, I included you in the CC after reading your comments regarding 
> sched_yield() at kernel summit and I thought you might be interested.
> 
> I have an experimental patchset that implements FUTEX_LOCK and 
> FUTEX_LOCK_ADAPTIVE in the kernel and use something akin to 
> mutex_spin_on_owner() for the first waiter to spin. What I'm finding is 
> that adaptive spinning actually hurts my particular test case, so I was 
> hoping to poll people for context regarding the existing adaptive 
> spinning implementations in the kernel as to where we see benefit. Under 
> which conditions does adaptive spinning help?
> 
> I presume locks with a short average hold time stand to gain the most as 
> the longer the lock is held the more likely the spinner will expire its 
> timeslice or that the scheduling gain becomes noise in the acquisition 
> time. My test case simple calls "lock();unlock()" for a fixed number of 
> iterations and reports the iterations per second at the end of the run. 
> It can run with an arbitrary number of threads as well. I typically run 
> with 256 threads for 10M iterations.
> 
>          futex_lock: Result: 635 Kiter/s
> futex_lock_adaptive: Result: 542 Kiter/s
> 
> I've limited the number of spinners to 1 but feel that perhaps this 
> should be configurable as locks with very short hold times could benefit 
> from up to NR_CPUS-1 spinners.
> 
> I'd really appreciate any data, just general insight, you may have 
> acquired while implementing adaptive spinning for rt-mutexes and 
> mutexes. Open questions for me regarding conditions where adaptive 
> spinning helps are:
> 
> o What type of lock hold times do we expect to benefit?
> o How much contention is a good match for adaptive spinning?
>   - this is related to the number of threads to run in the test
> o How many spinners should be allowed?
> 
> I can share the kernel patches if people are interested, but they are 
> really early, and I'm not sure they are of much value until I better 
> understand the conditions where this is expected to be useful.
> 
> Thanks,
> 


-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-04-01  2:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-31 23:21 RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions Darren Hart
2010-03-31 23:35 ` Roland Dreier
2010-04-01  2:03   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 17:02     ` Chris Wright
2010-03-31 23:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-01  0:17   ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-01  2:25     ` Darren Hart
2010-04-03 18:00       ` john cooper
2010-04-05 14:06         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-03 17:51     ` john cooper
2010-04-01  2:13   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01  2:25     ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-01  5:15       ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 12:46         ` Gregory Haskins
2010-04-04  1:50       ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-04 15:06         ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-05 14:10         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01  2:10 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-04-01 14:04   ` Chris Mason
2010-04-01 14:20 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 15:54   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 16:10     ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 17:10       ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 17:15         ` Avi Kivity

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=4BB400AA.7090408@us.ibm.com \
    --to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmorreale@novell.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sdietrich@novell.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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.