From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@novell.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@novell.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
John Cooper <john.cooper@third-harmonic.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:22:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BBBA610.3090200@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BBA6B6F.7040201@us.ibm.com>
Darren Hart wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>>> > At 10%
>>>> duty cycle you have 25 waiters behind the lock on average. I don't
>>>> think this is realistic, and it means that spinning is invoked only
>>>> rarely.
>>>
>>> Perhaps some instrumentation is in order, it seems to get invoked
>>> enough to achieve some 20% increase in lock/unlock iterations.
>>> Perhaps another metric would be of more value - such as average wait
>>> time?
>>
>> Why measure an unrealistic workload?
>
> No argument there, thus my proposal for an alternate configuration below.
>
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing runs where the average number of waiters
>>>> is 0.2, 0.5, 1, and 2, corresponding to moderate-to-bad contention.
>>>> 25 average waiters on compute bound code means the application needs
>>>> to be rewritten, no amount of mutex tweaking will help it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps something NR_CPUS threads would be of more interest?
>>
>> That seems artificial.
>
> How so? Several real world applications use one thread per CPU to
> dispatch work to, wait for events, etc.
>
>>
>>> At 10% that's about .8 and at 25% the 2 of your upper limit. I could
>>> add a few more duty-cycle points and make 25% the max. I'll kick that
>>> off and post the results... probably tomorrow, 10M iterations takes a
>>> while, but makes the results relatively stable.
>>
>> Thanks. But why not vary the number of threads as well?
>
> Absolutely, I don't disagree that all the variables should vary in order
> to get a complete picture. I'm starting with 8 - it takes several hours
> to collect the data.
While this might be of less interest after today's discussion, I
promised to share the results of a run with 8 threads with a wider
selection of lower duty-cycles. The results are very poor for adaptive
and worse for aas (multiple spinners) compared to normal FUTEX_LOCK. As
Thomas and Peter have pointed out, the implementation is sub-optimal.
Before abandoning this approach I will see if I can find the bottlenecks
and simplify the kernel side of things. My impression is that I am doing
a lot more work in the kernel, especially in the adaptive loop, than is
really necessary.
Both the 8 and 256 Thread plots can be viewed here:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/dvhart/adaptive_futex/v4/
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-06 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-05 20:23 [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 1/6] futex: replace fshared and clockrt with combined flags Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 2/6] futex: add futex_q static initializer Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 3/6] futex: refactor futex_lock_pi_atomic Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 4/6] futex: Add FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning Darren Hart
2010-04-06 16:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-07 17:26 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-07 19:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-08 3:25 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-08 23:10 ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-09 5:41 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-09 13:13 ` Peter W. Morreale
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 5/6] futex: handle timeout inside adaptive lock spin Darren Hart
2010-04-06 8:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-07 17:31 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-07 18:44 ` Gregory Haskins
2010-04-07 23:15 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:23 ` [PATCH 6/6] futex: Add aggressive adaptive spinning argument to FUTEX_LOCK Darren Hart
2010-04-08 5:58 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 20:48 ` [PATCH V2^W V4 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning Darren Hart
2010-04-05 21:15 ` [PATCH V2 " Avi Kivity
2010-04-05 21:54 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 22:21 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-05 22:59 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-06 13:28 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 13:41 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 16:10 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 13:51 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 15:28 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-06 16:06 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 16:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 16:20 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-07 6:18 ` john cooper
2010-04-08 3:33 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-09 5:52 ` john cooper
2010-04-06 16:54 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 18:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 16:44 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-06 17:34 ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-10 23:35 ` Alan Cox
2010-04-10 23:53 ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-06 19:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 20:02 ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-06 23:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-06 23:36 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-07 6:08 ` drepper
2010-04-08 3:41 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-08 4:29 ` drepper
2010-04-07 5:33 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 21:22 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-04-05 23:15 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-05 23:29 ` Chris Wright
2010-04-06 13:30 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-06 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 14:47 ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-04-06 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 15:33 ` Darren Hart
2010-04-06 15:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=4BBBA610.3090200@us.ibm.com \
--to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=john.cooper@third-harmonic.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmorreale@novell.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.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).