linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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).