From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:23:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <557704DA.9070106@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150609120420.GV3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 06/09/2015 08:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:20:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
>> in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
>> causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
>> patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
>> with new readers.
> This is very narrow, would not the main cost still be the cacheline
> transfers?
>
> Do you have any numbers to back this? I would feel much better about
> this if there's real numbers attached.
I have just sent out a v2 patch with the microbenchmark data for the 2nd
patch. The extra cmpxchg() because of reader contention should have
about the same cost of a cacheline miss. The performance gain depends on
how often this kind of reader contention happens.
Regards,
Longman
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-09 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-08 22:20 [PATCH 0/2] locking/qrwlock: Fix interrupt handling problem Waiman Long
2015-06-08 22:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] locking/qrwlock: Fix bug in interrupt handling code Waiman Long
2015-06-08 22:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING Waiman Long
2015-06-09 12:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-09 15:23 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=557704DA.9070106@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.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