From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933663AbbCRQwS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:52:18 -0400
Received: from mail.efficios.com ([78.47.125.74]:45587 "EHLO mail.efficios.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932739AbbCRQwN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:52:13 -0400
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:52:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: josh@joshtriplett.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1914348389.33427.1426697534805.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150318164240.GA31251@cloud>
References: <1426695782-4742-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20150318164240.GA31251@cloud>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v14] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
 barrier (x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [173.246.22.116]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.7_GA_6021 (ZimbraWebClient - FF36 (Linux)/8.0.7_GA_6021)
Thread-Topic: sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier (x86)
Thread-Index: QT2BVAHMrQHLgxCqE4ism3lZjn62IA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

----- Original Message -----
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:23:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > memory barriers in reader:    1701557485 reads, 3129842 writes
> > signal-based scheme:          9825306874 reads,    5386 writes
> > sys_membarrier:               7992076602 reads,     220 writes
> > 
> > The dynamic sys_membarrier availability check adds some overhead to
> > the read-side compared to the signal-based scheme, but besides that,
> > with the expedited scheme, we can see that we are close to the read-side
> > performance of the signal-based scheme. However, this non-expedited
> > sys_membarrier implementation has a much slower grace period than signal
> > and memory barrier schemes.
> 
> Doesn't the query flag allow you to find out in advance rather than
> dynamically within the reader?  What's the reader performance if you
> hardcode availability of membarrier?

What I am currently doing is to use sys_membarrier with a query
flag within a lib constructor, and cache the result in a global
variable. In the reader, I just test the variable, and thus detect
whether I can use sys_membarrier, or if I need to fallback to
barriers on both reader and writer.

Are you suggesting I try removing the global variable load+test
from the reader fast path ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com