mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	therbert@google.com, walken@google.com, jeremy@goop.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, aquini@redhat.com, lwoodman@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:54:46 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1357235686.21409.25360.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1357231525.10284.58.camel@gandalf.local.home>

On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 11:45 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 08:10 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > > But then would the problem even exist? If the lock is on its own cache
> > > line, it shouldn't cause a performance issue if other CPUs are spinning
> > > on it. Would it?
> > 
> > Not sure I understand the question.
> > 
> 
> I'll explain my question better.
> 
> I thought the whole point of Rik's patches was to solve a performance
> problem caused by contention on a lock that shares a cache line with
> data.
> 
> In the ideal case, locks wont be contented, and are taken and released
> quickly (being from the RT world, I know this isn't true :-( ). In this
> case, it's also advantageous to keep the lock on the same cache line as
> the data that's being updated. This way, the process of grabbing the
> lock also pulls in the data that you will soon be using.
> 
> But then the problem occurs when you have a bunch of other CPUs trying
> to take this lock in a tight spin. Every time the owner of the lock
> touches the data, the other CPUs doing a LOCK read on the spinlock will
> cause bus contention on the owner CPU as the data shares the cache and
> needs to be synced. As the owner CPU just touched the cache line that is
> under a tight loop of LOCK reads on other CPUs. By adding the delays,
> the CPU with the lock doesn't stall at every update of the data
> protected by the lock.
> 
> Thus, if monitor/mwait is ideal only for locks on its own cache line,
> then they are pointless for the locks that are causing the issue we are
> trying to fix.

I think you misunderstood the monitor/mwait usage I was speaking of

- Only for MCS type lock, where each cpu spins on it own busy/locked
bit.

Of course, if we use a ticket spinlock with no additional storage, we
have to spin without making any memory reference, and thats Rick's patch
using this idea : 

http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/synchronization/pseudocode/ss.html#ticket




  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-03 17:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-21 23:49 [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2012-12-21 23:50 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] x86,smp: move waiting on contended lock out of line Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:05   ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  4:40   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-22  4:48     ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-23 22:52   ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-21 23:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:07   ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:14     ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:47       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  4:44   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-23 22:55   ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-21 23:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2012-12-21 23:56   ` [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] " Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  0:18     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  2:43       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  0:48     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  2:57       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:29     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  3:44       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:33     ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:50       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-26 19:10         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-26 19:27           ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-26 19:51           ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-27  6:07             ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-27 14:27               ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 14:35                 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-27 18:41                   ` Jan Beulich
2012-12-27 19:09                     ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-03  9:05                       ` Jan Beulich
2013-01-03 13:24                         ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 13:35                           ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 15:32                             ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 16:10                               ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 16:45                                 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 17:54                                   ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2012-12-27 18:49                   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 19:31                     ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-29  0:42                       ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-29 10:27           ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 18:17             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  0:47   ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] " David Daney
2012-12-22  2:51     ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:49       ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:58         ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-23 23:08           ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-22  5:42   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-22 14:32     ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-02  0:06 ` ticket spinlock proportional backoff experiments Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-02  0:09   ` [PATCH 1/2] x86,smp: simplify __ticket_spin_lock Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-02 15:31     ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-02  0:10   ` [PATCH 2/2] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Michel Lespinasse

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=1357235686.21409.25360.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=aquini@redhat.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=therbert@google.com \
    --cc=walken@google.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®