From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
"Eduardo Valentin" <eduval@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Hybrid PV queued/unfair locks
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 08:37:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8fd3dfd1-7d86-38de-c1ad-b86d62576aa5@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1510089486-3466-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
On 07/11/17 22:18, Waiman Long wrote:
> Currently, all the lock waiters entering the slowpath will do one
> lock stealing attempt to acquire the lock. That helps performance,
> especially in VMs with over-committed vCPUs. However, the current
> pvqspinlocks still don't perform as good as unfair locks in many cases.
> On the other hands, unfair locks do have the problem of lock starvation
> that pvqspinlocks don't have.
>
> This patch combines the best attributes of an unfair lock and a
> pvqspinlock into a hybrid lock with 2 modes - queued mode & unfair
> mode. A lock waiter goes into the unfair mode when there are waiters
> in the wait queue but the pending bit isn't set. Otherwise, it will
> go into the queued mode waiting in the queue for its turn.
>
> On a 2-socket 36-core E5-2699 v3 system (HT off), a kernel build
> (make -j<n>) was done in a VM with unpinned vCPUs 3 times with the
> best time selected and <n> is the number of vCPUs available. The build
> times of the original pvqspinlock, hybrid pvqspinlock and unfair lock
> with various number of vCPUs are as follows:
>
> vCPUs pvqlock hybrid pvqlock unfair lock
> ----- ------- -------------- -----------
> 30 342.1s 329.1s 329.1s
> 36 314.1s 305.3s 307.3s
> 45 345.0s 302.1s 306.6s
> 54 365.4s 308.6s 307.8s
> 72 358.9s 293.6s 303.9s
> 108 343.0s 285.9s 304.2s
>
> The hybrid pvqspinlock performs better or comparable to the unfair
> lock.
>
> By turning on QUEUED_LOCK_STAT, the table below showed the number
> of lock acquisitions in unfair mode and queue mode after a kernel
> build with various number of vCPUs.
>
> vCPUs queued mode unfair mode
> ----- ----------- -----------
> 30 9,130,518 294,954
> 36 10,856,614 386,809
> 45 8,467,264 11,475,373
> 54 6,409,987 19,670,855
> 72 4,782,063 25,712,180
>
> It can be seen that as the VM became more and more over-committed,
> the ratio of locks acquired in unfair mode increases. This is all
> done automatically to get the best overall performance as possible.
>
> Using a kernel locking microbenchmark with number of locking
> threads equals to the number of vCPUs available on the same machine,
> the minimum, average and maximum (min/avg/max) numbers of locking
> operations done per thread in a 5-second testing interval are shown
> below:
>
> vCPUs hybrid pvqlock unfair lock
> ----- -------------- -----------
> 36 822,135/881,063/950,363 75,570/313,496/ 690,465
> 54 542,435/581,664/625,937 35,460/204,280/ 457,172
> 72 397,500/428,177/499,299 17,933/150,679/ 708,001
> 108 257,898/288,150/340,871 3,085/181,176/1,257,109
>
> It can be seen that the hybrid pvqspinlocks are more fair and
> performant than the unfair locks in this test.
>
> The table below shows the kernel build times on a smaller 2-socket
> 16-core 32-thread E5-2620 v4 system.
>
> vCPUs pvqlock hybrid pvqlock unfair lock
> ----- ------- -------------- -----------
> 16 436.8s 433.4s 435.6s
> 36 366.2s 364.8s 364.5s
> 48 423.6s 376.3s 370.2s
> 64 433.1s 376.6s 376.8s
>
> Again, the performance of the hybrid pvqspinlock was comparable to
> that of the unfair lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Juergen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-08 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-07 21:18 [PATCH v2] locking/pvqspinlock: Hybrid PV queued/unfair locks Waiman Long
2017-11-08 7:37 ` Juergen Gross [this message]
2017-11-08 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-11-08 8:40 ` Eduardo Valentin
2017-11-08 9:46 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/pvqspinlock: Implement hybrid " tip-bot for 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=8fd3dfd1-7d86-38de-c1ad-b86d62576aa5@suse.com \
--to=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=eduval@amazon.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.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