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
next prev parent 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®