All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@novell.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	John Cooper <john.cooper@third-harmonic.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:22:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BBBA610.3090200@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BBA6B6F.7040201@us.ibm.com>

Darren Hart wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> 
>>> > At 10%
>>>> duty cycle you have 25 waiters behind the lock on average.  I don't 
>>>> think this is realistic, and it means that spinning is invoked only 
>>>> rarely.
>>>
>>> Perhaps some instrumentation is in order, it seems to get invoked 
>>> enough to achieve some 20% increase in lock/unlock iterations. 
>>> Perhaps another metric would be of more value - such as average wait 
>>> time?
>>
>> Why measure an unrealistic workload?
> 
> No argument there, thus my proposal for an alternate configuration below.
> 
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing runs where the average number of waiters 
>>>> is 0.2, 0.5, 1, and 2, corresponding to moderate-to-bad contention.
>>>> 25 average waiters on compute bound code means the application needs 
>>>> to be rewritten, no amount of mutex tweaking will help it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps something NR_CPUS threads would be of more interest? 
>>
>> That seems artificial.
> 
> How so? Several real world applications use one thread per CPU to 
> dispatch work to, wait for events, etc.
> 
>>
>>> At 10% that's about .8 and at 25% the 2 of your upper limit. I could 
>>> add a few more duty-cycle points and make 25% the max. I'll kick that 
>>> off and post the results... probably tomorrow, 10M iterations takes a 
>>> while, but makes the results relatively stable.
>>
>> Thanks.  But why not vary the number of threads as well?
> 
> Absolutely, I don't disagree that all the variables should vary in order 
> to get a complete picture. I'm starting with 8 - it takes several hours 
> to collect the data.

While this might be of less interest after today's discussion, I 
promised to share the results of a run with 8 threads with a wider 
selection of lower duty-cycles. The results are very poor for adaptive 
and worse for aas (multiple spinners) compared to normal FUTEX_LOCK. As 
Thomas and Peter have pointed out, the implementation is sub-optimal. 
Before abandoning this approach I will see if I can find the bottlenecks 
and simplify the kernel side of things. My impression is that I am doing 
a lot more work in the kernel, especially in the adaptive loop, than is 
really necessary.

Both the 8 and 256 Thread plots can be viewed here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/dvhart/adaptive_futex/v4/

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-04-06 21:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-05 20:23 [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 1/6] futex: replace fshared and clockrt with combined flags Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 2/6] futex: add futex_q static initializer Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 3/6] futex: refactor futex_lock_pi_atomic Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 4/6] futex: Add FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning Darren Hart
2010-04-06 16:55   ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-07 17:26     ` Darren Hart
2010-04-07 19:59       ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-08  3:25         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-08 23:10           ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-09  5:41             ` Darren Hart
2010-04-09 13:13               ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 5/6] futex: handle timeout inside adaptive lock spin Darren Hart
2010-04-06  8:27   ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-07 17:31     ` Darren Hart
2010-04-07 18:44       ` Gregory Haskins
2010-04-07 23:15         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 6/6] futex: Add aggressive adaptive spinning argument to FUTEX_LOCK Darren Hart
2010-04-08  5:58   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:48 ` [PATCH V2^W V4 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning Darren Hart
2010-04-05 21:15 ` [PATCH V2 " Avi Kivity
2010-04-05 21:54   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 22:21     ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-05 22:59       ` Darren Hart
2010-04-06 13:28         ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 13:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 13:41             ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 14:09               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 16:10                 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 16:53                   ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 13:51             ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 15:28               ` Darren Hart
2010-04-06 16:06                 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 16:14                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 16:20                     ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-07  6:18                       ` john cooper
2010-04-08  3:33                         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-09  5:52                           ` john cooper
2010-04-06 16:54                     ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 18:15                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 16:44                 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 17:34                   ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-10 23:35                     ` Alan Cox
2010-04-10 23:53                       ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-06 19:31                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 20:02                     ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-06 23:16                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 23:36                         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-07  6:08                         ` drepper
2010-04-08  3:41                           ` Darren Hart
2010-04-08  4:29                             ` drepper
2010-04-07  5:33                     ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 21:22         ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-04-05 23:15       ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 23:29         ` Chris Wright
2010-04-06 13:30         ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06  8:48   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 14:47     ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-06 14:51       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 15:33         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-06 15:37           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra

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=4BBBA610.3090200@us.ibm.com \
    --to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=john.cooper@third-harmonic.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmorreale@novell.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.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.