From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v4 02/10] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:17:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20161006181718.GA14967@linux-80c1.suse> References: <1471554672-38662-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1471554672-38662-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1471554672-38662-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jason Low , Dave Chinner , Jonathan Corbet , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote: >Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone >until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the >wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while to get the lock. During >that period, writer lock stealing will be disabled because of the >active read lock. > >This patch will release the active read lock ASAP so that writer lock >stealing can happen sooner. The only downside is when the reader is >the first one in the wait queue as it has to issue another atomic >operation to update the count. > >On a 4-socket Haswell machine running on a 4.7-rc1 tip-based kernel, >the fio test with multithreaded randrw and randwrite tests on the >same file on a XFS partition on top of a NVDIMM with DAX were run, >the aggregated bandwidths before and after the patch were as follows: > > Test BW before patch BW after patch % change > ---- --------------- -------------- -------- > randrw 1210 MB/s 1352 MB/s +12% > randwrite 1622 MB/s 1710 MB/s +5.4% Yeah, this is really a bad workload to make decisions on locking heuristics imo - if I'm thinking of the same workload. Mainly because concurrent buffered io to the same file isn't very realistic and you end up pathologically pounding on i_rwsem (which used to be until recently i_mutex until Al's parallel lookup/readdir). Obviously write lock stealing wins in this case. Thanks, Davidlohr From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50481 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735AbcJFSRd (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:17:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:17:18 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v4 02/10] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Message-ID: <20161006181718.GA14967@linux-80c1.suse> References: <1471554672-38662-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1471554672-38662-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1471554672-38662-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jason Low , Dave Chinner , Jonathan Corbet , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch Message-ID: <20161006181718.vz77oXOLokq4-fapWc0VPrFnQtm4jLNIy7Rg6VP3vvY@z> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote: >Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone >until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the >wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while to get the lock. During >that period, writer lock stealing will be disabled because of the >active read lock. > >This patch will release the active read lock ASAP so that writer lock >stealing can happen sooner. The only downside is when the reader is >the first one in the wait queue as it has to issue another atomic >operation to update the count. > >On a 4-socket Haswell machine running on a 4.7-rc1 tip-based kernel, >the fio test with multithreaded randrw and randwrite tests on the >same file on a XFS partition on top of a NVDIMM with DAX were run, >the aggregated bandwidths before and after the patch were as follows: > > Test BW before patch BW after patch % change > ---- --------------- -------------- -------- > randrw 1210 MB/s 1352 MB/s +12% > randwrite 1622 MB/s 1710 MB/s +5.4% Yeah, this is really a bad workload to make decisions on locking heuristics imo - if I'm thinking of the same workload. Mainly because concurrent buffered io to the same file isn't very realistic and you end up pathologically pounding on i_rwsem (which used to be until recently i_mutex until Al's parallel lookup/readdir). Obviously write lock stealing wins in this case. Thanks, Davidlohr