From: Don Porter <porterde@cs.utexas.edu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Optimize zone allocator synchronization
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:36:26 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071118053626.GC21569@olive-green.cs.utexas.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200711071632.00055.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Thank you all for your consideration and insightful responses to my
posting. I apologize for not responding sooner---I have been under a
deadline.
It seems clear that further investigation will be needed to understand
these performance numbers better.
To summarize, I understand that the following experiments will be helpful:
1) Instrument the allocation code to determine the common size/order
of the allocations for these workloads.
2) Try to integrate these changes with ticket spinlocks
3) Try placing the zone lock in its own cacheline
4) Look for single-threaded regressions (dd benchmark).
I'll do these at my first opportunity, hopefully within the next week.
Please let me know if I misunderstood any of your comments.
My intuition about the cost of ping-ponging the lock's cache line
certainly matched yours, so I was very surprised to see these
performance numbers.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:31:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> It's funny, Dave Miller and I were just talking about the possible
> reappearance of zone->lock contention with massively multi core and
> multi threaded CPUs. I think the right way to fix this in the long run
> if it turns into a real problem, is something like having a lock per
> MAX_ORDER block, and having CPUs prefer to allocate from different
> blocks. Anti-frag makes this pretty interesting to implement, but it
> will be possible.
As a bit of background, the zone lock is indeed one of the more
contended locks in my target workloads so it was no accident that I
was looking for ways to improve its scalability. I am quite
interested in Nick's ideas about how to split up the zone allocator's
synchronization.
Of course, these contention levels may not meet your definition of
"real problem" (~.1% of the execution time).
Best regards,
Don
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-18 5:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-04 19:52 Don Porter
2007-11-06 10:08 ` Chris Snook
2007-11-07 6:19 ` Andrew Morton
2007-11-07 5:31 ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-18 5:36 ` Don Porter [this message]
2008-01-29 16:31 ` Don Porter
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=20071118053626.GC21569@olive-green.cs.utexas.edu \
--to=porterde@cs.utexas.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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®