From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:54:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131010075444.GD17990@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1381336441.11046.128.camel@schen9-DESK>
* Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> The throughput of pure mmap with mutex is below vs pure mmap is below:
>
> % change in performance of the mmap with pthread-mutex vs pure mmap
> #threads vanilla all rwsem without optspin
> patches
> 1 3.0% -1.0% -1.7%
> 5 7.2% -26.8% 5.5%
> 10 5.2% -10.6% 22.1%
> 20 6.8% 16.4% 12.5%
> 40 -0.2% 32.7% 0.0%
>
> So with mutex, the vanilla kernel and the one without optspin both run
> faster. This is consistent with what Peter reported. With optspin, the
> picture is more mixed, with lower throughput at low to moderate number
> of threads and higher throughput with high number of threads.
So, going back to your orignal table:
> % change in performance of the mmap with pthread-mutex vs pure mmap
> #threads vanilla all without optspin
> 1 3.0% -1.0% -1.7%
> 5 7.2% -26.8% 5.5%
> 10 5.2% -10.6% 22.1%
> 20 6.8% 16.4% 12.5%
> 40 -0.2% 32.7% 0.0%
>
> In general, vanilla and no-optspin case perform better with
> pthread-mutex. For the case with optspin, mmap with pthread-mutex is
> worse at low to moderate contention and better at high contention.
it appears that 'without optspin' appears to be a pretty good choice - if
it wasn't for that '1 thread' number, which, if I correctly assume is the
uncontended case, is one of the most common usecases ...
How can the single-threaded case get slower? None of the patches should
really cause noticeable overhead in the non-contended case. That looks
weird.
It would also be nice to see the 2, 3, 4 thread numbers - those are the
most common contention scenarios in practice - where do we see the first
improvement in performance?
Also, it would be nice to include a noise/sttdev figure, it's really hard
to tell whether -1.7% is statistically significant.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-10 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1380748401.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations Tim Chen
2013-10-03 7:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-07 22:57 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-09 6:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-09 7:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-10 3:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-10-10 5:03 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-10-09 16:34 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-10 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-10-16 0:09 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16 6:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-16 18:28 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-04 22:36 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16 21:55 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-18 6:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 1/9] rwsem: check the lock before cpmxchg in down_write_trylock Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 2/9] rwsem: remove 'out' label in do_wake Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 3/9] rwsem: remove try_reader_grant label do_wake Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 4/9] rwsem/wake: check lock before do atomic update Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 5/9] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file Tim Chen
2013-10-08 19:51 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-10-08 20:34 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-08 21:31 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 6/9] MCS Lock: optimizations and extra comments Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 7/9] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 8/9] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 9/9] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path Tim Chen
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=20131010075444.GD17990@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=walken@google.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 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).