From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [page cache] eb797a8ee0: vm-scalability.throughput -16.5% regression
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 16:26:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a7idn0li.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiXgigVGwumT0y_N64LjCiB5tR0snjCAm3u4YyhDB+dwQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1267 bytes --]
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:19 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I think in the heavily contended situation, we should put the fields
>> accessed by rwsem holder in a different cache line of rwsem. But in
>> un-contended situation, we should put the fields accessed in rwsem
>> holder and rwsem in the same cache line to reduce the cache footprint.
>> The requirement of un-contended and heavily contended situation is
>> contradicted.
>
> Generally, we should strive to optimize for the uncontended state.
>
> The performance profile of a contended state tends to be very
> different, and the actual solution tends to be to try really hard to
> just avoid contention to begin with.
>
> I think we've gotten to the point where we have very few real loads
> that show lock contention on a kernel level. And when people do find
> loads that cause contention, we should try really hard to fix the
> locking rather than try to then treat the symptom of contention.
>
> So on the whole, aim to make the uncontended case go fast, at least to
> a first approximation.
Sounds reasonable! Thanks for clarification!
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, "Chen\,
Rong A" <rong.a.chen@intel.com>, "lkp\@01.org" <lkp@01.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [page cache] eb797a8ee0: vm-scalability.throughput -16.5% regression
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 16:26:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a7idn0li.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiXgigVGwumT0y_N64LjCiB5tR0snjCAm3u4YyhDB+dwQ@mail.gmail.com> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:32:57 -0800")
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:19 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I think in the heavily contended situation, we should put the fields
>> accessed by rwsem holder in a different cache line of rwsem. But in
>> un-contended situation, we should put the fields accessed in rwsem
>> holder and rwsem in the same cache line to reduce the cache footprint.
>> The requirement of un-contended and heavily contended situation is
>> contradicted.
>
> Generally, we should strive to optimize for the uncontended state.
>
> The performance profile of a contended state tends to be very
> different, and the actual solution tends to be to try really hard to
> just avoid contention to begin with.
>
> I think we've gotten to the point where we have very few real loads
> that show lock contention on a kernel level. And when people do find
> loads that cause contention, we should try really hard to fix the
> locking rather than try to then treat the symptom of contention.
>
> So on the whole, aim to make the uncontended case go fast, at least to
> a first approximation.
Sounds reasonable! Thanks for clarification!
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-02 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-14 9:22 [page cache] eb797a8ee0: vm-scalability.throughput -16.5% regression kernel test robot
2018-11-14 9:22 ` [LKP] " kernel test robot
2018-11-14 14:17 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-11-14 14:17 ` [LKP] " Matthew Wilcox
2019-02-26 8:17 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-26 8:17 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2019-02-26 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-26 17:30 ` [LKP] " Linus Torvalds
2019-02-26 20:29 ` Waiman Long
2019-02-26 20:29 ` [LKP] " Waiman Long
2019-02-28 1:18 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-28 1:18 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2019-02-28 1:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-28 1:32 ` [LKP] " Linus Torvalds
2019-03-02 8:26 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2019-03-02 8:26 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-28 2:37 ` Waiman Long
2019-02-28 2:37 ` [LKP] " Waiman Long
2019-02-28 3:26 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-28 3:26 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
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=87a7idn0li.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.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.