From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] futex: add optimistic spinning to FUTEX_SPIN_LOCK
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:34:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53CEBCDB.8060106@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1405973838.4677.11.camel@j-VirtualBox>
On 07/21/2014 04:17 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 11:24 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> This patch adds code to do optimistic spinning for the FUTEX_SPIN_LOCK
>> primitive on the futex value when the lock owner is running. It is
>> the same optimistic spinning technique that is done in the mutex and
>> rw semaphore code to improve their performance especially on large
>> systems with large number of CPUs. When the lock owner is not running,
>> the spinning tasks will go to sleep.
> Perhaps we could introduce a "CONFIG_FUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER" that depends
> on SMP and ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW?
The new futex opcode depends on the ability to do cmpxchg() in the futex
context. The code will be disabled if futex cmpxchg is not supported. I
guess that should be enough to limit it to just a handful of architectures.
>> There is 2 major advantages of doing optimistic spinning here:
>> 1) It eliminates the context switching latency and overhead (at
>> least a few us) associated with sleeping and wakeup.
>> 2) It eliminates most of the need to call futex(2) with
>> FUTEX_SPIN_UNLOCK as spinning is done without the need to set
>> the FUTEX_WAITERS bit.
>> struct futex_q_head {
>> struct list_head hnode;
>> struct list_head waitq;
>> union futex_key key;
>> + struct optimistic_spin_queue *osq;
> And this would have to be updated to
>
> + struct optimistic_spin_queue osq;
>
> given the recent changes to the osq lock.
Yes, I will make the change in the next iteration of the patch.
-Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-22 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-21 15:24 [RFC PATCH 0/5] futex: introduce an optimistic spinning futex Waiman Long
2014-07-21 15:24 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] futex: add new exclusive lock & unlock command codes Waiman Long
2014-07-21 16:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 18:22 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-22 21:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-21 15:24 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] futex: add optimistic spinning to FUTEX_SPIN_LOCK Waiman Long
2014-07-21 17:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-22 18:46 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-21 20:17 ` Jason Low
2014-07-22 19:34 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2014-07-21 15:24 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] spinning futex: move a wakened task to spinning Waiman Long
2014-07-21 15:24 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] spinning futex: put waiting tasks in a sorted rbtree Waiman Long
2014-07-21 15:24 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] futex, doc: add a document on how to use the spinning futexes Waiman Long
2014-07-21 15:45 ` Randy Dunlap
2014-07-22 3:19 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-21 16:42 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] futex: introduce an optimistic spinning futex Andi Kleen
2014-07-21 16:45 ` Andi Kleen
2014-07-21 17:20 ` Darren Hart
[not found] ` <CFF29A00.9D44A%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
2014-07-21 17:41 ` Darren Hart
2014-07-21 20:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-21 21:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-21 21:31 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-07-21 21:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-21 22:41 ` Darren Hart
2014-07-22 1:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 1:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-07-22 2:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-22 3:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-22 7:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-22 8:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-22 9:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 20:25 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-22 20:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 20:21 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-22 21:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 0:32 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-22 7:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-21 21:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-21 18:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 18:35 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-22 18:28 ` Waiman Long
2014-07-23 4:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-23 6:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-23 7:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-23 7:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-23 7:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-23 7:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-21 21:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-07-21 21:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-22 19:36 ` Waiman Long
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=53CEBCDB.8060106@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.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