linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: "lkml, " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@novell.com>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:10:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB400AA.7090408@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB3D90C.3030108@us.ibm.com>

CC'ing the right Chris this time.

Darren Hart wrote:
> I'm looking at some adaptive spinning with futexes as a way to help 
> reduce the dependence on sched_yield() to implement userspace spinlocks. 
> Chris, I included you in the CC after reading your comments regarding 
> sched_yield() at kernel summit and I thought you might be interested.
> 
> I have an experimental patchset that implements FUTEX_LOCK and 
> FUTEX_LOCK_ADAPTIVE in the kernel and use something akin to 
> mutex_spin_on_owner() for the first waiter to spin. What I'm finding is 
> that adaptive spinning actually hurts my particular test case, so I was 
> hoping to poll people for context regarding the existing adaptive 
> spinning implementations in the kernel as to where we see benefit. Under 
> which conditions does adaptive spinning help?
> 
> I presume locks with a short average hold time stand to gain the most as 
> the longer the lock is held the more likely the spinner will expire its 
> timeslice or that the scheduling gain becomes noise in the acquisition 
> time. My test case simple calls "lock();unlock()" for a fixed number of 
> iterations and reports the iterations per second at the end of the run. 
> It can run with an arbitrary number of threads as well. I typically run 
> with 256 threads for 10M iterations.
> 
>          futex_lock: Result: 635 Kiter/s
> futex_lock_adaptive: Result: 542 Kiter/s
> 
> I've limited the number of spinners to 1 but feel that perhaps this 
> should be configurable as locks with very short hold times could benefit 
> from up to NR_CPUS-1 spinners.
> 
> I'd really appreciate any data, just general insight, you may have 
> acquired while implementing adaptive spinning for rt-mutexes and 
> mutexes. Open questions for me regarding conditions where adaptive 
> spinning helps are:
> 
> o What type of lock hold times do we expect to benefit?
> o How much contention is a good match for adaptive spinning?
>   - this is related to the number of threads to run in the test
> o How many spinners should be allowed?
> 
> I can share the kernel patches if people are interested, but they are 
> really early, and I'm not sure they are of much value until I better 
> understand the conditions where this is expected to be useful.
> 
> Thanks,
> 


-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-04-01  2:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-31 23:21 RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions Darren Hart
2010-03-31 23:35 ` Roland Dreier
2010-04-01  2:03   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 17:02     ` Chris Wright
2010-03-31 23:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-01  0:17   ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-01  2:25     ` Darren Hart
2010-04-03 18:00       ` john cooper
2010-04-05 14:06         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-03 17:51     ` john cooper
2010-04-01  2:13   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01  2:25     ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-01  5:15       ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 12:46         ` Gregory Haskins
2010-04-04  1:50       ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-04 15:06         ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-05 14:10         ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01  2:10 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-04-01 14:04   ` Chris Mason
2010-04-01 14:20 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 15:54   ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 16:10     ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 17:10       ` Darren Hart
2010-04-01 17:15         ` Avi Kivity

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=4BB400AA.7090408@us.ibm.com \
    --to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmorreale@novell.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sdietrich@novell.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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).