From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:55:24 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <47e586d6-0cb5-0572-3f7b-d5eb5a6ced68@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20180409105835.GC23134@arm.com> On 04/09/2018 06:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Waiman, > > Thanks for taking this lot for a spin. Comments and questions below. > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:50:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 04/05/2018 12:58 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> The qspinlock locking slowpath utilises a "pending" bit as a simple form >>> of an embedded test-and-set lock that can avoid the overhead of explicit >>> queuing in cases where the lock is held but uncontended. This bit is >>> managed using a cmpxchg loop which tries to transition the uncontended >>> lock word from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1) or (0,0,1) -> (0,1,1). >>> >>> Unfortunately, the cmpxchg loop is unbounded and lockers can be starved >>> indefinitely if the lock word is seen to oscillate between unlocked >>> (0,0,0) and locked (0,0,1). This could happen if concurrent lockers are >>> able to take the lock in the cmpxchg loop without queuing and pass it >>> around amongst themselves. >>> >>> This patch fixes the problem by unconditionally setting _Q_PENDING_VAL >>> using atomic_fetch_or, and then inspecting the old value to see whether >>> we need to spin on the current lock owner, or whether we now effectively >>> hold the lock. The tricky scenario is when concurrent lockers end up >>> queuing on the lock and the lock becomes available, causing us to see >>> a lockword of (n,0,0). With pending now set, simply queuing could lead >>> to deadlock as the head of the queue may not have observed the pending >>> flag being cleared. Conversely, if the head of the queue did observe >>> pending being cleared, then it could transition the lock from (n,0,0) -> >>> (0,0,1) meaning that any attempt to "undo" our setting of the pending >>> bit could race with a concurrent locker trying to set it. >>> >>> We handle this race by preserving the pending bit when taking the lock >>> after reaching the head of the queue and leaving the tail entry intact >>> if we saw pending set, because we know that the tail is going to be >>> updated shortly. >>> >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >>> --- >> The pending bit was added to the qspinlock design to counter performance >> degradation compared with ticket lock for workloads with light >> spinlock contention. I run my spinlock stress test on a Intel Skylake >> server running the vanilla 4.16 kernel vs a patched kernel with this >> patchset. The locking rates with different number of locking threads >> were as follows: >> >> # of threads 4.16 kernel patched 4.16 kernel >> ------------ ----------- ------------------- >> 1 7,417 kop/s 7,408 kop/s >> 2 5,755 kop/s 4,486 kop/s >> 3 4,214 kop/s 4,169 kop/s >> 4 4,396 kop/s 4,383 kop/s >> >> The 2 contending threads case is the one that exercise the pending bit >> code path the most. So it is obvious that this is the one that is most >> impacted by this patchset. The differences in the other cases are mostly >> noise or maybe just a little bit on the 3 contending threads case. > That is bizarre. A few questions: > > 1. Is this with my patches as posted, or also with your WRITE_ONCE change? This is just the with your patches as posted. > 2. Could you try to bisect my series to see which patch is responsible > for this degradation, please? I have done further analysis with the help of CONFIG_QUEUED_LOCK_STAT with another patch to enable counting the pending and the queuing code paths. Running the 2-thread test with the original qspinlock code on a Haswell server, the performance data were pending count = 3,265,220 queuing count = 22 locking rate = 11,648 kop/s With your posted patches, pending count = 330 queuing count = 9,965,127 locking rate = 4,178 kop/s I believe that my test case has heavy dependency on _Q_PENDING_VAL spinning loop. When I added back the loop, the performance data became: pending count = 3,278,320 queuing count = 0 locking rate = 11,884 kop/s Instead of an infinite loop, I also tried a limited spin with loop count of 0x200 and I got similar performance data as the infinite loop case. > 3. Could you point me at your stress test, so I can try to reproduce these > numbers on arm64 systems, please? I will send you the test that I used in a separate email. >> I am not against this patch, but we certainly need to find out a way to >> bring the performance number up closer to what it is before applying >> the patch. > We certainly need to *understand* where the drop is coming from, because > the two-threaded case is still just a CAS on x86 with and without this > patch series. Generally, there's a throughput cost when ensuring fairness > and forward-progress otherwise we'd all be using test-and-set. As stated above, the drop comes mainly from skipping the _Q_PENDING_VAL spinning loop. I supposed that if we just do a limited spin, we can still ensure forward progress while preserving the performance profile of the original qspinlock code. I don't think other codes in your patches cause any performance regression as far as my testing is concerned. Cheers, Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: longman@redhat.com (Waiman Long) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:55:24 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <47e586d6-0cb5-0572-3f7b-d5eb5a6ced68@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20180409105835.GC23134@arm.com> On 04/09/2018 06:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Waiman, > > Thanks for taking this lot for a spin. Comments and questions below. > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:50:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 04/05/2018 12:58 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> The qspinlock locking slowpath utilises a "pending" bit as a simple form >>> of an embedded test-and-set lock that can avoid the overhead of explicit >>> queuing in cases where the lock is held but uncontended. This bit is >>> managed using a cmpxchg loop which tries to transition the uncontended >>> lock word from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1) or (0,0,1) -> (0,1,1). >>> >>> Unfortunately, the cmpxchg loop is unbounded and lockers can be starved >>> indefinitely if the lock word is seen to oscillate between unlocked >>> (0,0,0) and locked (0,0,1). This could happen if concurrent lockers are >>> able to take the lock in the cmpxchg loop without queuing and pass it >>> around amongst themselves. >>> >>> This patch fixes the problem by unconditionally setting _Q_PENDING_VAL >>> using atomic_fetch_or, and then inspecting the old value to see whether >>> we need to spin on the current lock owner, or whether we now effectively >>> hold the lock. The tricky scenario is when concurrent lockers end up >>> queuing on the lock and the lock becomes available, causing us to see >>> a lockword of (n,0,0). With pending now set, simply queuing could lead >>> to deadlock as the head of the queue may not have observed the pending >>> flag being cleared. Conversely, if the head of the queue did observe >>> pending being cleared, then it could transition the lock from (n,0,0) -> >>> (0,0,1) meaning that any attempt to "undo" our setting of the pending >>> bit could race with a concurrent locker trying to set it. >>> >>> We handle this race by preserving the pending bit when taking the lock >>> after reaching the head of the queue and leaving the tail entry intact >>> if we saw pending set, because we know that the tail is going to be >>> updated shortly. >>> >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >>> --- >> The pending bit was added to the qspinlock design to counter performance >> degradation compared with ticket lock for workloads with light >> spinlock contention. I run my spinlock stress test on a Intel Skylake >> server running the vanilla 4.16 kernel vs a patched kernel with this >> patchset. The locking rates with different number of locking threads >> were as follows: >> >> # of threads 4.16 kernel patched 4.16 kernel >> ------------ ----------- ------------------- >> 1 7,417 kop/s 7,408 kop/s >> 2 5,755 kop/s 4,486 kop/s >> 3 4,214 kop/s 4,169 kop/s >> 4 4,396 kop/s 4,383 kop/s >> >> The 2 contending threads case is the one that exercise the pending bit >> code path the most. So it is obvious that this is the one that is most >> impacted by this patchset. The differences in the other cases are mostly >> noise or maybe just a little bit on the 3 contending threads case. > That is bizarre. A few questions: > > 1. Is this with my patches as posted, or also with your WRITE_ONCE change? This is just the with your patches as posted. > 2. Could you try to bisect my series to see which patch is responsible > for this degradation, please? I have done further analysis with the help of CONFIG_QUEUED_LOCK_STAT with another patch to enable counting the pending and the queuing code paths. Running the 2-thread test with the original qspinlock code on a Haswell server, the performance data were pending count = 3,265,220 queuing count = 22 locking rate = 11,648 kop/s With your posted patches, pending count = 330 queuing count = 9,965,127 locking rate = 4,178 kop/s I believe that my test case has heavy dependency on _Q_PENDING_VAL spinning loop. When I added back the loop, the performance data became: pending count = 3,278,320 queuing count = 0 locking rate = 11,884 kop/s Instead of an infinite loop, I also tried a limited spin with loop count of 0x200 and I got similar performance data as the infinite loop case. > 3. Could you point me at your stress test, so I can try to reproduce these > numbers on arm64 systems, please? I will send you the test that I used in a separate email. >> I am not against this patch, but we certainly need to find out a way to >> bring the performance number up closer to what it is before applying >> the patch. > We certainly need to *understand* where the drop is coming from, because > the two-threaded case is still just a CAS on x86 with and without this > patch series. Generally, there's a throughput cost when ensuring fairness > and forward-progress otherwise we'd all be using test-and-set. As stated above, the drop comes mainly from skipping the _Q_PENDING_VAL spinning loop. I supposed that if we just do a limited spin, we can still ensure forward progress while preserving the performance profile of the original qspinlock code. I don't think other codes in your patches cause any performance regression as far as my testing is concerned. Cheers, Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-09 17:55 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-04-05 16:58 [PATCH 00/10] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:58 ` [PATCH 01/10] locking/qspinlock: Don't spin on pending->locked transition in slowpath Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:58 ` [PATCH 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 17:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-05 17:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-06 15:08 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 15:08 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-05 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-05 21:16 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-05 21:16 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-06 15:08 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 15:08 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 20:50 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-06 20:50 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-06 21:09 ` Paul E. McKenney 2018-04-06 21:09 ` Paul E. McKenney 2018-04-07 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-07 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-07 23:37 ` Paul E. McKenney 2018-04-07 23:37 ` Paul E. McKenney 2018-04-09 10:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 10:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-07 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-07 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-09 10:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 10:58 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-09 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-09 17:19 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 17:19 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-10 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-10 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-09-20 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-09-20 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-09-20 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-09-20 16:22 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-09 19:33 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-09 19:33 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-09 17:55 ` Waiman Long [this message] 2018-04-09 17:55 ` Waiman Long 2018-04-10 13:49 ` Sasha Levin 2018-04-10 13:49 ` Sasha Levin 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg loop when claiming lock from head of queue Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 17:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-05 17:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-06 10:54 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 10:54 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 05/10] locking/mcs: Use smp_cond_load_acquire() in mcs spin loop Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 06/10] barriers: Introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed and atomic_cond_read_relaxed Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-05 17:22 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-06 10:55 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 10:55 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 07/10] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_relaxed to wait for next node Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 08/10] locking/qspinlock: Merge struct __qspinlock into struct qspinlock Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-07 5:23 ` Boqun Feng 2018-04-07 5:23 ` Boqun Feng 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 09/10] locking/qspinlock: Make queued_spin_unlock use smp_store_release Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` [PATCH 10/10] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb() Will Deacon 2018-04-05 16:59 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-05 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-05 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-04-06 11:34 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 11:34 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 13:05 ` Andrea Parri 2018-04-06 13:05 ` Andrea Parri 2018-04-06 15:27 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 15:27 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 15:49 ` Andrea Parri 2018-04-06 15:49 ` Andrea Parri 2018-04-07 5:47 ` Boqun Feng 2018-04-07 5:47 ` Boqun Feng 2018-04-09 10:47 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-09 10:47 ` Will Deacon 2018-04-06 13:22 ` [PATCH 00/10] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Andrea Parri 2018-04-06 13:22 ` Andrea Parri 2018-04-11 10:20 ` Catalin Marinas 2018-04-11 10:20 ` Catalin Marinas 2018-04-11 15:39 ` Andrea Parri 2018-04-11 15:39 ` Andrea Parri
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=47e586d6-0cb5-0572-3f7b-d5eb5a6ced68@redhat.com \ --to=longman@redhat.com \ --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.