From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] futex: Reduce hash bucket lock contention
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:51:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1316015498.5040.33.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E70CC3B.4000905@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:46 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2011 06:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Use the brand spanking new wake_list to delay the futex wakeups until
> > after we've released the hash bucket locks. This avoids the newly
> > woken tasks from immediately getting stuck on the hb lock.
> >
> > This is esp. painful on -rt, where the hb lock is preemptible.
>
> Nice!
>
> Have you run this through the functional and performance tests from
> futextest? Looks like I should also add a multiwake test to really
> showcase this.
Not more functional than booting, but a very similar patch used to live
in 33-rt.. I lost the use-case we had that led to that patch, for -rt it
made a huge difference because we endlessly scheduled back and forth
between the waker and the wakee bouncing on the hb lock.
> If you don't have it local I can setup a github repository for futextest
> until korg is back.... or do the testing myself... right.
Right, I don't think I have futextest, or I might, I'd have to dig
around a bit.
> > @@ -988,7 +986,7 @@ futex_wake(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned i
> > if (!(this->bitset & bitset))
> > continue;
> >
> > - wake_futex(this);
> > + wake_futex(&wake_list, this);
>
>
> I guess this is OK. wake_futex_pi will always be one task I believe, so
> the list syntax might confuse newcomers... Would it make sense to have a
> wake_futex_list() call? Thinking outloud...
To what purpose? Even delaying a single wakeup until after we release
the hb lock is useful. On it matters even on !-rt since the woken task
can wake on another cpu and then spin on hb-lock.
> > @@ -1437,6 +1441,7 @@ static int futex_requeue(u32 __user *uad
> > put_futex_key(&key2);
> > out_put_key1:
> > put_futex_key(&key1);
> > + wake_up_list(&wake_list, TASK_NORMAL);
> > out:
> > if (pi_state != NULL)
> > free_pi_state(pi_state);
> >
> >
>
> I _think_ requeue_pi is in the clear here as it uses
> requeue_pi_wake_futex, which calls wake_up_state directly. Still, some
> testing with futextest functional/futex_requeue_pi is in order.
Ah, right, that might want frobbing too..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-14 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-14 13:30 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] delayed wakeup list Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] sched: Provide " Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 14:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-09-14 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 15:35 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-14 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 15:49 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-16 7:59 ` Paul Turner
2011-09-16 7:59 ` Paul Turner
2011-09-16 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-02 14:01 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-10-03 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] futex: Reduce hash bucket lock contention Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 15:46 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-14 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-09-14 16:00 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-14 20:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-17 12:57 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-19 7:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-19 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ipc/sem: Rework wakeup scheme Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-15 17:29 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-15 19:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-15 19:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-15 19:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-17 12:36 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-16 12:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-17 12:32 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-16 12:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] delayed wakeup list Eric Dumazet
2011-09-14 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=1316015498.5040.33.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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