mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nicolai Hähnle" <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] locking/ww_mutex: Keep sorted wait list to avoid stampedes
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:40:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a1a917c1-94ee-47a9-e41a-22d596aca9e0@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161130122029.GP23336@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On 30.11.2016 13:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>> On 30.11.2016 10:40, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:20:01PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>>> I've included timings taken from a contention-heavy stress test to some of
>>>> the patches. The stress test performs actual GPU operations which take a
>>>> good chunk of the wall time, but even so, the series still manages to
>>>> improve the wall time quite a bit.
>>>
>>> In looking at your contention scenarios, what was the average/max list
>>> size? Just wondering if it makes sense to use an rbtree + first_waiter
>>> instead of a sorted list from the start.
>>
>> I haven't measured this with the new series; previously, while I was
>> debugging the deadlock on older kernels, I occasionally saw wait
>> lists of up to ~20 tasks, spit-balling the average over all the
>> deadlock cases I'd say the average was not more than ~5. The average
>> _without_ deadlocks should be lower, if anything.
>
> Right, I wasn't expecting the list to be large, certainly no larger than
> cores typically. On the borderline of where a more complex tree starts
> to pay off.
>
>> I saw that your test cases go quite a bit higher, but even the
>> rather extreme load I was testing with -- which is not quite a load
>> from an actual application, though it is related to one -- has 40
>> threads and so a theoretical maximum of 40.
>
> The stress loads were just values plucked out of nowhere to try and have
> a reasonable stab at hitting the deadlock. Certainly if we were to wrap
> that up in a microbenchmark we would want to have wider coverage (so the
> graph against contention is more useful).
>
> Do you have a branch I can pull the patches for (or what did you use as
> the base)?

See git://people.freedesktop.org/~nh/linux mutex or 
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~nh/linux/log/?h=mutex.

It's based on tip/core/locking + agd5f's drm-next, the latter only 
because I needed it for the test application.

Nicolai

      reply	other threads:[~2016-11-30 13:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-28 12:20 Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:42   ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-11-28 12:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-28 12:58   ` Christian König
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp_after Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww_ctx even when locking without a context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30 14:10   ` Chris Wilson
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 06/11] locking/ww_mutex: Notify waiters that have to back off while adding tasks to wait list Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 07/11] locking/ww_mutex: Wake at most one waiter for back off when acquiring the lock Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 08/11] locking/ww_mutex: Yield to other waiters from optimistic spin Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 09/11] locking/mutex: Initialize mutex_waiter::ww_ctx with poison when debugging Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 10/11] Documentation/locking/ww_mutex: Update the design document Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 11/11] [rfc] locking/ww_mutex: Always spin optimistically for the first waiter Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30  0:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] locking: Begin kselftests for ww_mutex Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  0:35   ` [PATCH 2/4] locking: Add kselftests for ww_mutex AA deadlock detection Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  0:35   ` [PATCH 3/4] locking: Add kselftests for ww_mutex ABBA " Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  0:35   ` [PATCH 4/4] locking: Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress Chris Wilson
2016-11-30 12:29     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-11-30 12:52       ` Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  8:00   ` [PATCH 1/4] locking: Begin kselftests for ww_mutex Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30 19:08   ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-30  9:40 ` [PATCH 00/11] locking/ww_mutex: Keep sorted wait list to avoid stampedes Chris Wilson
2016-11-30 11:52   ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30 12:20     ` Chris Wilson
2016-11-30 13:40       ` Nicolai Hähnle [this message]

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=a1a917c1-94ee-47a9-e41a-22d596aca9e0@gmail.com \
    --to=nhaehnle@gmail.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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