mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;
 }
 
 /*

  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®