From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mutex: do not unnecessarily deal with waiters
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:53:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51CDF7BB.4070604@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1372450398.2106.1.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
On 06/28/2013 04:13 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
>
> Upon entering the slowpath, we immediately attempt to acquire the lock
> by checking if it is already unlocked. If we are lucky enough that this
> is the case, then we don't need to deal with any waiter related logic.
>
> Furthermore any checks for an empty wait_list are unnecessary as we
> already know that count is non-negative and hence no one is waiting for
> the lock.
>
> Move the count check and xchg calls to be done before any waiters are
> setup - including waiter debugging. Upon failure to acquire the lock,
> the xchg sets the counter to 0, instead of -1 as it was originally.
> This can be done here since we set it back to -1 right at the beginning
> of the loop so other waiters are woken up when the lock is released.
>
> When tested on a 8-socket (80 core) system against a vanilla 3.10-rc1
> kernel, this patch provides some small performance benefits (+2-6%).
> While it could be considered in the noise level, the average percentages
> were stable across multiple runs and no performance regressions were seen.
> Two big winners, for small amounts of users (10-100), were the short and
> compute workloads had a +19.36% and +%15.76% in jobs per minute.
>
> Also change some break statements to 'goto slowpath', which IMO makes a
> little more intuitive to read.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
--
All rights reversed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-28 20:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-23 23:59 [PATCH] mutex: do not unnecessarily deal with waiters Davidlohr Bueso
2013-05-31 1:12 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-26 17:49 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-27 9:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-28 1:32 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-28 5:53 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2013-06-28 19:29 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-28 20:13 ` [PATCH v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-28 20:53 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2013-06-29 7:17 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2013-07-19 17:57 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-24 3:55 ` [tip:core/locking] mutex: Do " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
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=51CDF7BB.4070604@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--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