linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).