From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
To: alex.kogan@oracle.com
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, bp@alien8.de, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com,
dave.dice@oracle.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, hpa@zytor.com,
jglauber@marvell.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
longman@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
steven.sistare@oracle.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
will.deacon@arm.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:44:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210930094447.9719-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210514200743.3026725-1-alex.kogan@oracle.com>
> We have done some performance evaluation with the locktorture module
> as well as with several benchmarks from the will-it-scale repo.
> The following locktorture results are from an Oracle X5-4 server
> (four Intel Xeon E7-8895 v3 @ 2.60GHz sockets with 18 hyperthreaded
> cores each). Each number represents an average (over 25 runs) of the
> total number of ops (x10^7) reported at the end of each run. The
> standard deviation is also reported in (), and in general is about 3%
> from the average. The 'stock' kernel is v5.12.0,
I assume x5-4 server has the crossbar topology and its numa diameter is
1hop, and all tests were done on this kind of symmetrical topology. Am
I right?
┌─┐ ┌─┐
│ ├─────────────────┤ │
└─┤1 1└┬┘
│ 1 1 │
│ 1 1 │
│ 1 1 │
│ 1 │
│ 1 1 │
│ 1 1 │
│ 1 1 │
┌┼┐1 1 ├─┐
│┼┼─────────────────┤ │
└─┘ └─┘
what if the hardware is using the ring topology and other topologies with
2-hops or even 3-hops such as:
┌─┐ ┌─┐
│ ├─────────────────┤ │
└─┤ └┬┘
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
┌┤ ├─┐
│┼┬─────────────────┤ │
└─┘ └─┘
or:
┌───┐ ┌───┐ ┌────┐ ┌─────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├───┼───────┼───┼──────┼────┼──────┼─────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└───┘ └───┘ └────┘ └─────┘
do we need to consider the distances of numa nodes in the secondary
queue? does it still make sense to treat everyone else equal in
secondary queue?
Thanks
barry
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-30 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-14 20:07 [PATCH v15 0/6] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock Alex Kogan
2021-05-14 20:07 ` [PATCH v15 1/6] locking/qspinlock: Rename mcs lock/unlock macros and make them more generic Alex Kogan
2021-05-14 20:07 ` [PATCH v15 2/6] locking/qspinlock: Refactor the qspinlock slow path Alex Kogan
2021-05-14 20:07 ` [PATCH v15 3/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock Alex Kogan
2021-09-22 19:25 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-09-22 19:52 ` Waiman Long
2023-08-04 1:49 ` Guo Ren
2021-09-30 10:05 ` Barry Song
2023-08-02 23:14 ` Guo Ren
2023-08-03 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-03 10:28 ` Guo Ren
2023-08-03 11:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-04 1:33 ` Guo Ren
2023-08-04 1:38 ` Guo Ren
2023-08-04 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-04 14:17 ` Guo Ren
2023-08-04 18:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-05 0:19 ` Guo Ren
2021-05-14 20:07 ` [PATCH v15 4/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA Alex Kogan
2021-05-14 20:07 ` [PATCH v15 5/6] locking/qspinlock: Avoid moving certain threads between waiting queues in CNA Alex Kogan
2021-05-14 20:07 ` [PATCH v15 6/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce the shuffle reduction optimization into CNA Alex Kogan
2021-09-30 9:44 ` Barry Song [this message]
2021-09-30 16:58 ` [PATCH v15 0/6] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock Waiman Long
2021-09-30 22:57 ` Barry Song
2021-09-30 23:51 ` Alex Kogan
2021-12-13 20:37 ` Alex Kogan
2021-12-15 15:13 ` Alex Kogan
2022-04-11 17:09 ` Alex Kogan
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=20210930094447.9719-1-21cnbao@gmail.com \
--to=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=alex.kogan@oracle.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=dave.dice@oracle.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jglauber@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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).