Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 07/18/2013 07:49 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 06:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Waiman,
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 07/15/2013 06:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Waiman Long wrote:
[...]
>>
>>>>> + * an increase in lock size is not an issue.
>>>> So is it faster in the general case or only for the high contention or
>>>> single thread operation cases?
>>>>
>>>> And you still miss to explain WHY it is faster. Can you please explain
>>>> proper WHY it is faster and WHY we can't apply that technique you
>>>> implemented for qrwlocks to writer only locks (aka spinlocks) with a
>>>> smaller lock size?
>>> I will try to collect more data to justify the usefulness of qrwlock.
>> And please provide a proper argument why we can't use the same
>> technique for spinlocks.
>
> Of course, we can use the same technique for spinlock. Since we only
> need 1 bit for lock, we could combine the lock bit with the queue
> address with a little bit more overhead in term of coding and speed.
> That will make the new lock 4 bytes in size for 32-bit code & 8 bytes
> for 64-bit code. That could solve a lot of performance problem that we
> have with spinlock. However, I am aware that increasing the size of
> spinlock (for 64-bit systems) may break a lot of inherent alignment in
> many of the data structures. That is why I am not proposing such a
> change right now. But if there is enough interest, we could certainly go
> ahead and see how things go.

keeping apart the lock size part, for spinlocks, is it that
  fastpath overhead is less significant in low contention scenarios for
qlocks?

Also let me know if you have POC implementation for the spinlocks that
you can share. I am happy to test that.

sorry. different context:
apart from AIM7 fserver, is there any other benchmark to exercise this
qrwlock series? (to help in the testing).