From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:23:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <557704DA.9070106@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150609120420.GV3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 06/09/2015 08:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:20:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
>> in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
>> causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
>> patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
>> with new readers.
> This is very narrow, would not the main cost still be the cacheline
> transfers?
>
> Do you have any numbers to back this? I would feel much better about
> this if there's real numbers attached.
I have just sent out a v2 patch with the microbenchmark data for the 2nd
patch. The extra cmpxchg() because of reader contention should have
about the same cost of a cacheline miss. The performance gain depends on
how often this kind of reader contention happens.
Regards,
Longman
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-09 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-08 22:20 [PATCH 0/2] locking/qrwlock: Fix interrupt handling problem Waiman Long
2015-06-08 22:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] locking/qrwlock: Fix bug in interrupt handling code Waiman Long
2015-06-08 22:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING Waiman Long
2015-06-09 12:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-09 15:23 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=557704DA.9070106@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
/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.