From: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, walken@google.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
knoel@redhat.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com,
raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:30:05 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130110023004.GB1636@x61.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130108173241.3e1b1d2d@annuminas.surriel.com>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:32:41PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Subject: x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks
>
> Simple fixed value proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks.
> By pounding on the cacheline with the spin lock less often,
> bus traffic is reduced. In cases of a data structure with
> embedded spinlock, the lock holder has a better chance of
> making progress.
>
> If we are next in line behind the current holder of the
> lock, we do a fast spin, so as not to waste any time when
> the lock is released.
>
> The number 50 is likely to be wrong for many setups, and
> this patch is mostly to illustrate the concept of proportional
> backup. The next patch automatically tunes the delay value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
> arch/x86/kernel/smp.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> index 20da354..aa743e9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -117,11 +117,28 @@ static bool smp_no_nmi_ipi = false;
> */
> void ticket_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
> {
> + __ticket_t head = inc.head, ticket = inc.tail;
> + __ticket_t waiters_ahead;
> + unsigned loops;
> +
> for (;;) {
> - cpu_relax();
> - inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> + waiters_ahead = ticket - head - 1;
> + /*
> + * We are next after the current lock holder. Check often
> + * to avoid wasting time when the lock is released.
> + */
> + if (!waiters_ahead) {
> + do {
> + cpu_relax();
> + } while (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) != ticket);
> + break;
> + }
> + loops = 50 * waiters_ahead;
> + while (loops--)
> + cpu_relax();
>
> - if (inc.head == inc.tail)
> + head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> + if (head == ticket)
> break;
> }
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-10 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-08 22:26 [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 3:13 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-10 12:49 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-08 22:31 ` [PATCH 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 3:14 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-10 13:01 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-10 13:05 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 13:15 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-08 22:32 ` [DEBUG PATCH 5/5] x86,smp: add debugging code to track spinlock delay value Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:32 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-08 22:54 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 2:30 ` Rafael Aquini [this message]
2013-01-08 22:32 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86,smp: move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-10 17:38 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-09 12:50 ` [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Raghavendra K T
2013-01-10 2:27 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-10 17:36 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-11 20:11 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-13 18:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-10 15:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-10 15:31 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 19:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-24 13:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-10 22:24 ` Chegu Vinod
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=20130110023004.GB1636@x61.redhat.com \
--to=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=knoel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=walken@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).