From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lock's trace events can improve mutex's performance in userspace?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:27:02 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B9B1416.5020101@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B98BB50.1000002@cn.fujitsu.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2321 bytes --]
On 03/11/10 18:43, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> We found that if enable lock's trace events, the 'sysbench mutex'
> benchmark program can run quicker.
>
> The simple program that is attached can reproduce it, the system info,
> kernel config, and the script are also attached.
>
> The test step is below:
>
> # tar -zxvf test-mutex.tar.bz
> # cd test-mutex
> # make
> # ./tscript.sh>& log
> # cat log | grep "real"
> real 0m46.765s< all trace events are disabled>
> real 0m47.073s
> real 0m47.402s
> real 0m46.458s
> real 0m47.433s
> real 0m47.395s
> real 0m47.010s
> real 0m47.454s
> real 0m47.044s
> real 0m47.464s
> real 0m39.245s< enable lock's trace events>
> real 0m40.822s
> real 0m40.779s
> real 0m40.549s
> real 0m40.605s
> real 0m40.923s
> real 0m40.560s
> real 0m41.050s
> real 0m40.757s
> real 0m40.715s
>
> [ "< ...>" is my comments ]
>
> From the result, we can see the program's runtime is less if enable
lock's
> trace events.
>
> The conclusion is weird but i don't know why.
Hi Xiao,
It's hard to believe, but...
% sudo ./tscript.sh &> log
% grep real log
real 0m24.132s
real 0m23.535s
real 0m20.064s
real 0m16.636s <- enabled from here
real 0m16.435s
real 0m17.339s
I could reproduce your surprising result.
(I only execed your benchmark 3 times.)
I rewrote your mainc.c and checked contended count of each test like
this way,
if (pthread_mutex_trylock(&mutex) == EBUSY) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
atomic_inc(&contended);
}
# I'll attach my new mainc.c
% cat log
Run mutex with trace events disabled...
contended:25191221
real 0m24.132s
user 0m17.149s
sys 1m18.933s
contended:25360563
real 0m23.535s
user 0m17.233s
sys 1m16.213s
contended:23813911
real 0m20.064s
user 0m15.561s
sys 1m4.332s
Run mutex with lockdep events enabled...
contended:11458318
real 0m16.636s
user 0m10.173s
sys 0m55.595s
contended:11881095
real 0m16.435s
user 0m10.273s
sys 0m54.911s
contended:11261650
real 0m17.339s
user 0m10.225s
sys 0m58.556s
It seems that num of contention decreased to about half.
I don't know why this happened and effect to performance of it,
but this result is worth to consider.
Thanks,
Hitoshi
[-- Attachment #2: mainc.c --]
[-- Type: text/x-csrc, Size: 1594 bytes --]
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <errno.h>
#define THREADS_NUM 1000
#define MUTEX_LOCKS 300000
static pthread_mutex_t mutex;
static pthread_mutex_t thread_start_mutex;
static int dummy_count;
typedef struct {
volatile int val;
} atomic_t;
atomic_t contended = { 0 };
static inline int
atomic_inc(atomic_t *addr)
{
return __sync_add_and_fetch(&addr->val, 1);
}
static void *run_thread(void *arg)
{
int i;
pthread_mutex_lock(&thread_start_mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&thread_start_mutex);
for (i = 0; i < MUTEX_LOCKS; i++) {
if (pthread_mutex_trylock(&mutex) == EBUSY) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
atomic_inc(&contended);
}
dummy_count++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_t thread[THREADS_NUM];
pthread_attr_t thread_attr;
int i;
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&thread_start_mutex, NULL);
pthread_attr_init(&thread_attr);
pthread_attr_setstacksize(&thread_attr, 32*1024);
pthread_mutex_lock(&thread_start_mutex);
for (i = 0; i < THREADS_NUM; i++) {
if (pthread_create(&thread[i], &thread_attr, run_thread, NULL) != 0) {
printf("Thread[%d] create failed:", i);
perror(NULL);
exit(-1);
}
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&thread_start_mutex);
for (i = 0; i < THREADS_NUM; i++) {
if (pthread_join(thread[i], NULL) != 0)
printf("Thread #%d join failed.\n", i);
}
pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&thread_start_mutex);
printf("contended:%d\n", contended.val);
return 0;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-13 4:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-11 9:43 Xiao Guangrong
2010-03-13 4:27 ` Hitoshi Mitake [this message]
2010-04-05 9:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-04-08 9:05 ` Xiao Guangrong
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=4B9B1416.5020101@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp \
--to=mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
--cc=xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.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®