From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
Norton, Sc
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:03:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51EF19D8.2090307@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130722103402.GA1991@gmail.com>
On 07/22/2013 06:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long<waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:
>
>> I had run some performance tests using the fserver and new_fserver
>> benchmarks (on ext4 filesystems) of the AIM7 test suite on a 80-core
>> DL980 with HT on. The following kernels were used:
>>
>> 1. Modified 3.10.1 kernel with mb_cache_spinlock in fs/mbcache.c
>> replaced by a rwlock
>> 2. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + modified __read_lock_failed code as suggested
>> by Ingo
>> 3. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + queue read/write lock
>> 4. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + queue read/write lock in classic read/write
>> lock behavior
>>
>> The last one is with the read lock stealing flag set in the qrwlock
>> structure to give priority to readers and behave more like the classic
>> read/write lock with less fairness.
>>
>> The following table shows the averaged results in the 200-1000
>> user ranges:
>>
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
>> | Kernel | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
>> | fserver JPM | 245598 | 274457 | 403348 | 411941 |
>> | % change from 1 | 0% | +11.8% | +64.2% | +67.7% |
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
>> | new-fserver JPM | 231549 | 269807 | 399093 | 399418 |
>> | % change from 1 | 0% | +16.5% | +72.4% | +72.5% |
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
> So it's not just herding that is a problem.
>
> I'm wondering, how sensitive is this particular benchmark to fairness?
> I.e. do the 200-1000 simulated users each perform the same number of ops,
> so that any smearing of execution time via unfairness gets amplified?
>
> I.e. does steady-state throughput go up by 60%+ too with your changes?
For this particular benchmark, there are interplay of different locks
that determine the overall performance of the system. Yes, I got steady
state performance gain of 60%+ with the qrwlock change with the modified
mbcache.c. Without the modified mbcache.c file, the performance gain
drop to 20-30%. I am still trying to find out more about the performance
variations in different situations.
Regards,
Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:03:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51EF19D8.2090307@hp.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20130724000336.Cu2CiAGG95GmFQJ2NVavNpyC3bRSEm_eZqTfrlfvx0c@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130722103402.GA1991@gmail.com>
On 07/22/2013 06:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long<waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:
>
>> I had run some performance tests using the fserver and new_fserver
>> benchmarks (on ext4 filesystems) of the AIM7 test suite on a 80-core
>> DL980 with HT on. The following kernels were used:
>>
>> 1. Modified 3.10.1 kernel with mb_cache_spinlock in fs/mbcache.c
>> replaced by a rwlock
>> 2. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + modified __read_lock_failed code as suggested
>> by Ingo
>> 3. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + queue read/write lock
>> 4. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + queue read/write lock in classic read/write
>> lock behavior
>>
>> The last one is with the read lock stealing flag set in the qrwlock
>> structure to give priority to readers and behave more like the classic
>> read/write lock with less fairness.
>>
>> The following table shows the averaged results in the 200-1000
>> user ranges:
>>
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
>> | Kernel | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
>> | fserver JPM | 245598 | 274457 | 403348 | 411941 |
>> | % change from 1 | 0% | +11.8% | +64.2% | +67.7% |
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
>> | new-fserver JPM | 231549 | 269807 | 399093 | 399418 |
>> | % change from 1 | 0% | +16.5% | +72.4% | +72.5% |
>> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
> So it's not just herding that is a problem.
>
> I'm wondering, how sensitive is this particular benchmark to fairness?
> I.e. do the 200-1000 simulated users each perform the same number of ops,
> so that any smearing of execution time via unfairness gets amplified?
>
> I.e. does steady-state throughput go up by 60%+ too with your changes?
For this particular benchmark, there are interplay of different locks
that determine the overall performance of the system. Yes, I got steady
state performance gain of 60%+ with the qrwlock change with the modified
mbcache.c. Without the modified mbcache.c file, the performance gain
drop to 20-30%. I am still trying to find out more about the performance
variations in different situations.
Regards,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-24 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-13 1:34 [PATCH RFC 0/2] qrwlock: Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation Waiman Long
2013-07-13 1:34 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A " Waiman Long
2013-07-15 14:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-07-15 20:44 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-15 22:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-07-16 1:19 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-18 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-18 13:40 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 13:40 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-19 15:30 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-19 15:30 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-22 10:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-22 10:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-24 0:03 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2013-07-24 0:03 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 10:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-07-18 14:19 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-21 5:42 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-07-21 5:42 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-07-23 23:54 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-23 23:54 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-13 1:34 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] x86 qrwlock: Enable x86 to use queue read/write lock Waiman Long
2013-07-13 1:34 ` Waiman Long
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-07-18 12:55 [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation George Spelvin
2013-07-18 13:43 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 18:46 ` George Spelvin
2013-07-19 15:43 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-19 21:11 ` George Spelvin
2013-07-19 21:35 ` Waiman Long
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=51EF19D8.2090307@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=akinobu.mita@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=walken@google.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).