linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	aquini@redhat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:53:39 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <512E6443.9050603@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzPxJ3rfZvAvrP9LxCXfDU8AAVvhMZnP-OAoe-ycc70aw@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/27/2013 12:10 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Ugh. That really is rather random. "short" and fserver seems to
> improve a lot (including the "new" version), the others look like they
> are either unchanged or huge regressions.
>
> Is there any way to get profiles for the improved versions vs the
> regressed ones? It might well be that we have two different classes of
> spinlocks. Maybe we could make the back-off version be *explicit* (ie
> not part of the normal "spin_lock()", but you'd use a special
> "spin_lock_backoff()" function for it) because it works well for some
> cases but not for others?

If we have two classes of spinlocks, I suspect we would be better
off making those high-demand spinlocks MCS or LCH locks, which have
the property that having N+1 CPUs contend on the lock will never
result in slower aggregate throughput than having N CPUs contend.

Both the current spinlock code and the spinlock code with backoff
has the annoying property that adding more waiters to the lock can
slow down aggregate throughput.

The backoff code seems to push that point a little further out.
It appears that that may result in "lesser bottlenecks" disappearing,
which in turn triggers amplification of the worst bottlenecks.

> Hmm? At the very least, it would give us an idea of *which* spinlock
> it is that causes the most pain. I think your earlier indications was
> that it's the mutex->wait_lock or something?

I can certainly take profiles of various workloads, but there is
absolutely no guarantee that I will see the same bottlenecks that
eg. the people at HP have seen. The largest test system I currently
have access to has 40 cores, vs. the 80 cores in the (much more
interesting) HP results I pasted.

Would you also be interested in performance numbers (and profiles)
of a kernel that has bottleneck spinlocks replaced with MCS locks?

That could make for an interesting comparison...

-- 
All rights reversed

  reply	other threads:[~2013-02-27 19:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-06 20:03 [PATCH -v5 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:04 ` [PATCH -v5 1/5] x86,smp: move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:06   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 16:20     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 18:30       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14  0:54         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-14  1:31           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14  1:56             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-14 10:50         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-14 16:10           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-15 15:57             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-15  6:48         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-02-13 19:08       ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 19:36         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 22:21           ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 22:40             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 23:41               ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-14  1:21                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14  1:46                   ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14 10:43                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-27 16:42                   ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-27 17:10                     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-27 19:53                       ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2013-02-27 20:18                         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-27 21:55                           ` Rik van Riel
     [not found]                             ` <CA+55aFwa0EjGG2NUDYVLVBmXJa2k81YiuNO2yggk=GLRQxhhUQ@mail.gmail.com>
2013-02-28  2:58                               ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28  3:19                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28  4:06                                 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-02-28  4:49                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 15:13                                     ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 18:22                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 20:26                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 21:14                                           ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 21:58                                             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 22:38                                               ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 23:09                                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-01  6:42                                                   ` Rik van Riel
2013-03-01 18:18                                                     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-03-01 18:50                                                       ` Rik van Riel
2013-03-01 18:52                                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-06 20:04 ` [PATCH -v5 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:07   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Implement " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:05 ` [PATCH -v5 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:08   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Auto " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:06 ` [PATCH -v5 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:09   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Keep " tip-bot for Eric Dumazet
2013-02-06 20:07 ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] x86,smp: limit spinlock delay on virtual machines Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 11:11   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-07 21:24     ` [PATCH fix " Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:10       ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Limit " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 11:25   ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] x86,smp: limit " Stefano Stabellini
2013-02-07 11:59     ` Raghavendra K T
2013-02-07 13:28     ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:08 ` [PATCH -v5 6/5] x86,smp: add debugging code to track spinlock delay value Rik van Riel

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=512E6443.9050603@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aquini@redhat.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --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).