From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>,
"David Daney" <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock()
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:33:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160203083338.GA1772@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160202193037.GQ10166@arm.com>
* Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:06:36AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given that the vast majority of weakly ordered architectures respect
> > > address dependencies, I would expect all of them to be hurt if they
> > > were forced to use barrier instructions instead, even those where the
> > > microarchitecture is fairly strongly ordered in practice.
> >
> > I do wonder if it would be all that noticeable, though. I don't think
> > we've really had benchmarks.
> >
> > For example, most of the RCU list traversal shows up on x86 - where
> > loads are already acquires. But they show up not because of that, but
> > because a RCU list traversal is pretty much always going to take the
> > cache miss.
> >
> > So it would actually be interesting to just try it - what happens to
> > kernel-centric benchmarks (which are already fairly rare) on arm if we
> > change the rcu_dereference() to be a smp_load_acquire()?
> >
> > Because maybe nothing happens at all. I don't think we've ever tried it.
>
> FWIW, and this is by no means conclusive, I hacked that up quickly and ran
> hackbench a few times on the nearest idle arm64 system. The results were
> consistently ~4% slower using acquire for rcu_dereference.
Could you please double check that? The thing is that hackbench is a _notoriously_
unstable workload and very dependent on various small details such as kernel image
layout and random per-bootup cache/memory layouts details.
In fact I'd suggest to test this via a quick runtime hack like this in rcupdate.h:
extern int panic_timeout;
...
if (panic_timeout)
smp_load_acquire(p);
else
typeof(*p) *________p1 = (typeof(*p) *__force)lockless_dereference(p);
(or so)
and then you can start a loop of hackbench runs, and in another terminal change
the ordering primitive via:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic # smpload_acquire()
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic # smp_read_barrier_depends()
without having to reboot the kernel.
Also, instead of using hackbench which has a too short runtime that makes it
sensitive to scheduling micro-details, you could try the perf-bench hackbench
work-alike where the number of loops is parametric:
triton:~/tip> perf bench sched messaging -l 10000
# Running 'sched/messaging' benchmark:
# 20 sender and receiver processes per group
# 10 groups == 400 processes run
Total time: 4.532 [sec]
and you could get specific numbers of noise estimations via:
triton:~/tip> perf stat --null --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -l 10000
[...]
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench sched messaging -l 10000' (10 runs):
4.616404309 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.67% )
note that even with a repeat count of 10 runs and a loop count 100 times larger
than the hackbench default, the intrinsic noise of this workload was still 1.6% -
and that does not include boot-to-boot systematic noise.
It's very easy to get systemic noise with hackbench workloads and go down the
entirely wrong road.
Of course, the numbers might also confirm your 4% figure!
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-03 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-12 12:31 [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock() Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 13:31 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 14:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-11-12 14:50 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 14:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-11-12 17:46 ` David Daney
2015-11-12 18:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 18:13 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 18:17 ` David Daney
2016-01-27 9:57 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-01-27 11:43 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-27 12:41 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-01-28 1:11 ` Boqun Feng
2016-01-27 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-27 15:21 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-27 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-28 9:57 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-28 22:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-29 9:59 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-29 10:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-01 13:56 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 3:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 5:19 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 6:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 8:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 8:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 9:34 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 17:51 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 19:30 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 19:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-03 19:13 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-03 8:33 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-02-03 13:32 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-03 19:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 11:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-09 11:42 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 12:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 22:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 14:49 ` Ralf Baechle
2016-02-02 14:54 ` Måns Rullgård
2016-02-02 14:58 ` Ralf Baechle
2016-02-02 15:51 ` Måns Rullgård
2016-02-02 17:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-02 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 11:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 12:12 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 12:20 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 13:18 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 17:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 17:37 ` Will Deacon
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=20160203083338.GA1772@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@imgtec.com \
--cc=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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).