From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: jason.low2@hpe.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
imre.deak@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
terry.rudd@hpe.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning is enabled
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:07:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1470866872.17361.14.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1470854648.17361.9.camel@j-VirtualBox>
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 11:44 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> Imre reported an issue where threads are getting starved when trying
> to acquire a mutex. Threads acquiring a mutex can get arbitrarily delayed
> sleeping on a mutex because other threads can continually steal the lock
> in the fastpath and/or through optimistic spinning.
>
> Waiman has developed patches that allow waiters to return to optimistic
> spinning, thus reducing the probability that starvation occurs. However,
> Imre still sees this starvation problem in the workloads when optimistic
> spinning is disabled.
>
> This patch adds an additional boolean to the mutex that gets used in
> the CONFIG_SMP && !CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER cases. The flag signifies
> whether or not other threads need to yield to a waiter and gets set
> when a waiter spends too much time waiting for the mutex. The threshold
> is currently set to 16 wakeups, and once the wakeup threshold is exceeded,
> other threads must yield to the top waiter. The flag gets cleared
> immediately after the top waiter acquires the mutex.
Just noticed that the patch title mentions "when spinning is enabled".
The title should really be:
"locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning is disabled"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-10 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-10 18:44 [PATCH v2] locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning is enabled Jason Low
2016-08-10 20:00 ` kbuild test robot
2016-08-10 20:01 ` kbuild test robot
2016-08-16 20:19 ` Jason Low
2016-08-10 22:07 ` Jason Low [this message]
2016-08-11 2:30 ` Jason Low
2016-08-11 15:40 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-16 19:44 ` Jason Low
2016-08-17 1:41 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-08-17 18:30 ` Jason Low
2016-08-18 0:38 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-08-18 14:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-18 15:22 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 14:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-18 15:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-18 15:30 ` 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=1470866872.17361.14.camel@j-VirtualBox \
--to=jason.low2@hpe.com \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hpe.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=terry.rudd@hpe.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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