From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: aquini@redhat.com, walken@google.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
lwoodman@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
knoel@redhat.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:24:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130103002444.113f4950@annuminas.surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130103001536.7fd1e952@annuminas.surriel.com>
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
a different wait time.
This patch has multiple delay values per cpu, indexed on a hash
of the lock address, to avoid that problem.
Eric Dumazet wrote:
I did some tests with your patches with following configuration :
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root htb r2q 1000 default 3
(to force a contention on qdisc lock, even with a multi queue net
device)
and 24 concurrent "netperf -t UDP_STREAM -H other_machine -- -m 128"
Machine : 2 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5660 @ 2.80GHz
(24 threads), and a fast NIC (10Gbps)
Resulting in a 13 % regression (676 Mbits -> 595 Mbits)
In this workload we have at least two contended spinlocks, with
different delays. (spinlocks are not held for the same duration)
It clearly defeats your assumption of a single per cpu delay being OK :
Some cpus are spinning too long while the lock was released.
We might try to use a hash on lock address, and an array of 16 different
delays so that different spinlocks have a chance of not sharing the same
delay.
With following patch, I get 982 Mbits/s with same bench, so an increase
of 45 % instead of a 13 % regression.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/smp.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
index 6065291..29360c4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include <linux/gfp.h>
+#include <linux/hash.h>
#include <asm/mtrr.h>
#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
@@ -135,12 +136,26 @@ static bool smp_no_nmi_ipi = false;
*/
#define MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY 1
#define MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY 16000
-DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, spinlock_delay) = { MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY };
+#define DELAY_HASH_SHIFT 6
+struct delay_entry {
+ u32 hash;
+ u32 delay;
+};
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct delay_entry [1 << DELAY_HASH_SHIFT], spinlock_delay) = {
+ [0 ... (1 << DELAY_HASH_SHIFT) - 1] = {
+ .hash = 0,
+ .delay = MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY,
+ },
+};
+
void ticket_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
{
__ticket_t head = inc.head, ticket = inc.tail;
__ticket_t waiters_ahead;
- int delay = __this_cpu_read(spinlock_delay);
+ u32 hash = hash32_ptr(lock);
+ u32 slot = hash_32(hash, DELAY_HASH_SHIFT);
+ struct delay_entry *ent = &__get_cpu_var(spinlock_delay[slot]);
+ u32 delay = (ent->hash == hash) ? ent->delay : MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY;
unsigned loops;
for (;;) {
@@ -178,7 +193,8 @@ void ticket_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
break;
}
}
- __this_cpu_write(spinlock_delay, delay);
+ ent->hash = hash;
+ ent->delay = delay;
}
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-03 5:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-03 5:15 [RFC PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 5:18 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86,smp: move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 10:47 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 5:22 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 11:35 ` Raghavendra KT
2013-01-03 11:42 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 18:19 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-03 5:23 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 12:31 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 17:17 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-05 0:45 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 5:24 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2013-01-03 12:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 13:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 5:25 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86,smp: add debugging code to track spinlock delay value Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 10:46 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 11:29 ` Raghavendra KT
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=20130103002444.113f4950@annuminas.surriel.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=knoel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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®