public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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