From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Make owner store task pointer of last owning reader
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:56:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9730a289-dac8-a255-4306-43a676059d73@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180911081755.GO24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 09/11/2018 04:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:15:50AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> One major issue with a combined count/owner is that we may have to use
>>> cmpxchg for reader lock which will certainly impact reader-heavy
>>> workloads. I have also thought about ways to compress the task pointer
>>> address so that it can use fewer bits and leave the rests for reader
>>> count. It is probably doable on 64-bit systems, but likely not on 32-bit
>>> system given that there are less bits to play around.
>> Yeah we've discussed this before. As a cleanup it would obviously be good,
>> but I fear about raw performance loss when using cmpxchg instead of xadd.
> Does it really matter though? Last time I looked at something similar
> (refcount_t) the "LOCK INCL" vs "LOCK CMPXCHG" was something like 15 vs
> 23 cycles (and that was with the cmpxchg loop actually doing a lot
> more).
>
> Do we really care about the down_read() path _that_ much? I thought that
> with the main pain point, pagefaults, the problem was mostly the line
> bouncing, not a few extra cycles.
It is not simply that cmpxchg needs more cycles to run, it is the fact
that a few retries may be necessary to actually increment the count in
case of contention leading to more RMW cycles than with xadd. I am not
saying that we can't do that, but there is a price we need to pay.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-11 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-06 20:18 Waiman Long
2018-09-10 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-10 15:01 ` Waiman Long
2018-09-10 17:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-09-10 17:35 ` Waiman Long
2018-09-11 8:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-11 12:56 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2018-09-11 19:21 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-09-11 19:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-10 10:54 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Waiman Long
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=9730a289-dac8-a255-4306-43a676059d73@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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
Powered by JetHome