From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:20:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5220F090.5050908@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzv9BZ2+B2NrNRRtTqnfgbH3LRSvSsUZVsy-g9OpM-8HA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/30/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So the perf data would be *much* more interesting for a more varied
> load. I know pretty much exactly what happens with my silly
> test-program, and as you can see it never really gets to the actual
> spinlock, because that test program will only ever hit the fast-path
> case. It would be much more interesting to see another load that may
> trigger the d_lock actually being taken. So:
>> For the other test cases that I am interested in, like the AIM7 benchmark,
>> your patch may not be as good as my original one. I got 1-3M JPM (varied
>> quite a lot in different runs) in the short workloads on a 80-core system.
>> My original one got 6M JPM. However, the test was done on 3.10 based kernel.
>> So I need to do more test to see if that has an effect on the JPM results.
> I'd really like to see a perf profile of that, particularly with some
> call chain data for the relevant functions (ie "what it is that causes
> us to get to spinlocks"). Because it may well be that you're hitting
> some of the cases that I didn't see, and thus didn't notice.
>
> In particular, I suspect AIM7 actually creates/deletes files and/or
> renames them too. Or maybe I screwed up the dget_parent() special case
> thing, which mattered because AIM7 did a lot of getcwd() calls or
> someting odd like that.
>
> Linus
Below is the perf data of my short workloads run in an 80-core DL980:
13.60% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k]
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
|--48.79%-- tty_ldisc_try
|--48.58%-- tty_ldisc_deref
--2.63%-- [...]
11.31% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] intel_idle
|--99.94%-- cpuidle_enter_state
--0.06%-- [...]
4.86% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] lg_local_lock
|--59.41%-- mntput_no_expire
|--19.37%-- path_init
|--15.14%-- d_path
|--5.88%-- sys_getcwd
--0.21%-- [...]
3.00% reaim reaim [.] mul_short
2.41% reaim reaim [.] mul_long
|--87.21%-- 0xbc614e
--12.79%-- (nil)
2.29% reaim reaim [.] mul_int
2.20% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
|--12.81%-- prepend_path
|--9.90%-- lockref_put_or_lock
|--9.62%-- __rcu_process_callbacks
|--8.77%-- load_balance
|--6.40%-- lockref_get
|--5.55%-- __mutex_lock_slowpath
|--4.85%-- __mutex_unlock_slowpath
|--4.83%-- inet_twsk_schedule
|--4.27%-- lockref_get_or_lock
|--2.19%-- task_rq_lock
|--2.13%-- sem_lock
|--2.09%-- scheduler_tick
|--1.88%-- try_to_wake_up
|--1.53%-- kmem_cache_free
|--1.30%-- unix_create1
|--1.22%-- unix_release_sock
|--1.21%-- process_backlog
|--1.11%-- unix_stream_sendmsg
|--1.03%-- enqueue_to_backlog
|--0.85%-- rcu_accelerate_cbs
|--0.79%-- unix_dgram_sendmsg
|--0.76%-- do_anonymous_page
|--0.70%-- unix_stream_recvmsg
|--0.69%-- unix_stream_connect
|--0.64%-- net_rx_action
|--0.61%-- tcp_v4_rcv
|--0.59%-- __do_fault
|--0.54%-- new_inode_pseudo
|--0.52%-- __d_lookup
--10.62%-- [...]
1.19% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock
|--99.82%-- __mutex_lock_slowpath
--0.18%-- [...]
1.01% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] lg_global_lock
|--51.62%-- __shmdt
--48.38%-- __shmctl
There are more contention in the lglock than I remember for the run in
3.10. This is an area that I need to look at. In fact, lglock is
becoming a problem for really large machine with a lot of cores. We have
a prototype 16-socket machine with 240 cores under development. The cost
of doing a lg_global_lock will be very high in that type of machine
given that it is already high in this 80-core machine. I have been
thinking about instead of per-cpu spinlocks, we could change the locking
to per-node level. While there will be more contention for
lg_local_lock, the cost of doing a lg_global_lock will be much lower and
contention within the local die should not be too bad. That will require
either a per-node variable infrastructure or simulated with the existing
per-cpu subsystem.
I will also need to look at ways reduce the need of taking d_lock in
existing code. One area that I am looking at is whether we can take out
the lock/unlock pair in prepend_path(). This function can only be called
with the rename_lock taken. So no filename change or deletion will be
allowed. It will only be a problem if somehow the dentry itself got
killed or dropped while the name is being copied out. The first dentry
referenced by the path structure should have a non-zero reference count,
so that shouldn't happen. I am not so sure about the parents of that
dentry as I am not so familiar with that part of the filesystem code.
Regards,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-30 19:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 151+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-06 3:12 [PATCH v7 0/4] Lockless update of reference count protected by spinlock Waiman Long
2013-08-06 3:12 ` [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount Waiman Long
2013-08-29 1:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-29 4:44 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-29 7:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-08-29 16:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-29 19:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-29 23:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 0:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-30 0:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 2:06 ` Michael Neuling
2013-08-30 2:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-30 2:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 2:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-30 2:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 2:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-30 7:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-08-30 15:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 3:12 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 3:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 7:55 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 8:10 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 9:27 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 9:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-08-30 9:56 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 9:58 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 10:29 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-30 10:44 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 10:46 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-30 10:57 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 14:05 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 11:19 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 10:38 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 15:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 15:38 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 16:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-08-30 16:16 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 18:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 16:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 16:37 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 16:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 17:11 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 10:01 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-01 10:33 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-01 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 15:45 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-01 15:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-02 10:30 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-02 16:09 ` David Ahern
2013-09-01 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 21:23 ` Al Viro
2013-09-01 22:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 22:35 ` Al Viro
2013-09-01 22:44 ` Al Viro
2013-09-01 22:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 22:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 23:30 ` Al Viro
2013-09-02 0:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-02 0:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-02 7:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-02 16:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 10:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-03 15:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 19:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-03 21:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 21:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 21:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 14:08 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-03 22:37 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-03 22:55 ` Dave Jones
2013-09-03 23:05 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-03 23:15 ` Dave Jones
2013-09-03 23:20 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-03 23:45 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-08-30 18:33 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 18:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 19:20 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2013-08-30 19:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 20:15 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 20:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 20:54 ` Al Viro
2013-08-30 21:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 21:44 ` Al Viro
2013-08-30 22:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-31 21:23 ` Al Viro
2013-08-31 22:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-31 23:27 ` Al Viro
2013-09-01 0:13 ` Al Viro
2013-09-01 17:48 ` Al Viro
2013-09-09 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-30 21:10 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 21:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 21:30 ` Al Viro
2013-08-30 21:42 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 19:40 ` Al Viro
2013-08-30 19:52 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 20:26 ` Al Viro
2013-08-30 20:35 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 20:48 ` Al Viro
2013-08-31 2:02 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-31 2:35 ` Al Viro
2013-08-31 2:42 ` Al Viro
2013-09-02 19:25 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-03 6:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-03 7:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-03 15:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 15:14 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-03 15:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-03 21:01 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-04 14:52 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-04 15:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-04 19:25 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-04 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-05 2:35 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-05 13:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-05 17:33 ` Waiman Long
2013-09-05 17:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-03 22:41 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-03 23:11 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-09-08 21:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-09 0:03 ` Al Viro
2013-09-09 0:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-09 0:35 ` Al Viro
2013-09-09 0:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-09 0:57 ` Al Viro
2013-09-09 2:09 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-09-09 0:30 ` Al Viro
2013-09-09 3:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-09 4:06 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-09-09 5:44 ` Al Viro
2013-08-30 17:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-30 17:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-30 17:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-29 15:20 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-06 3:12 ` [PATCH v7 2/4] spinlock: Enable x86 architecture to do lockless refcount update Waiman Long
2013-08-06 3:12 ` [PATCH v7 3/4] dcache: replace d_lock/d_count by d_lockcnt Waiman Long
2013-08-06 3:12 ` [PATCH v7 4/4] dcache: Enable lockless update of dentry's refcount Waiman Long
2013-08-13 18:03 ` [PATCH v7 0/4] Lockless update of reference count protected by spinlock Waiman Long
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-31 3:06 [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount George Spelvin
2013-08-31 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 8:50 ` George Spelvin
2013-09-01 11:10 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-09-01 15:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-01 18:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-09-01 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
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=5220F090.5050908@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mszeredi@suse.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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