From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@in.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Lock free fd lookup
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:16:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040717031645.GM3411@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3671.1090031334@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:19:36 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> That's a large assumption. NUMA hardware typically violates it.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> True, which is why I mentioned it. However I suspect that you read
> something into that paragraph which was not intended.
The NUMA issue is the only caveat I saw. I guess I just wanted to
mention it by name.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Just reading the lockfree list and the structures on the list does not
> suffer from any NUMA problems, because reading does not perform any
> global updates at all. The SMP starvation problem only kicks in when
> multiple concurrent updates are being done. Even with multiple
> writers, one of the writers is guaranteed to succeed every time, so
> over time all the write operations will proceed, subject to fair access
> to exclusive cache lines.
The only methods I can think of to repair this (basically queueing) are
not busywait-free.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Lockfree reads with Moir's algorithms require extra memory bandwidth.
> In the absence of updates, all the cache lines end up in shared state.
> That reduces to local memory bandwidth for the (hopefully) common case
> of lots of readers and few writers. Lockfree code is nicely suited to
> the same class of problem that RCU addresses, but without the reader
> vs. writer starvation problems.
I suppose it's worth refining the starvation claim to delaying freeing
memory as opposed to readers causing writers to busywait indefinitely.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:28:54PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Writer vs. writer starvation on NUMA is a lot harder. I don't know of
> any algorithm that handles lists with lots of concurrent updates and
> also scales well on large cpus, unless the underlying hardware is fair
> in its handling of exclusive cache lines.
Well, neither do I. =)
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-17 3:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-14 4:53 [RFC] Refcounting of objects part of a lockfree collection Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-14 4:56 ` [RFC] Lock free fd lookup Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-14 15:17 ` Chris Wright
2004-07-15 14:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-07-15 16:10 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-15 16:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-07-15 16:34 ` Chris Wright
2004-07-16 5:38 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-16 6:27 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 0:55 ` Keith Owens
2004-07-17 1:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 2:12 ` Keith Owens
2004-07-17 2:34 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 2:28 ` Keith Owens
2004-07-17 3:16 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-07-17 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2004-07-14 7:07 ` [RFC] Refcounting of objects part of a lockfree collection Greg KH
2004-07-14 8:26 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 14:26 ` Greg KH
2004-07-14 15:22 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 17:03 ` Greg KH
2004-07-14 17:49 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 18:03 ` Greg KH
2004-07-15 6:21 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-15 6:56 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-14 8:57 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-14 17:08 ` Greg KH
2004-07-14 18:17 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-15 8:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2004-07-15 9:36 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-07-16 14:32 ` Greg KH
2004-07-16 15:50 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-17 8:50 [RFC] Lock free fd lookup Manfred Spraul
2004-07-17 9:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-17 19:17 Albert Cahalan
2004-07-29 0:14 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=20040717031645.GM3411@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=jbarnes@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=kiran@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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