All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:35:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150610073512.GA17226@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433863153-30722-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>


* Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> wrote:

> The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
> in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
> causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
> patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
> with new readers.
> 
> A multithreaded microbenchmark running 5M read_lock/write_lock loop
> on a 8-socket 80-core Westmere-EX machine running 4.0 based kernel
> with the qspinlock patch have the following execution times (in ms)
> with and without the patch:
> 
> With R:W ratio = 5:1
> 
> 	Threads	   w/o patch	with patch	% change
> 	-------	   ---------	----------	--------
> 	   2	     990 	    895		  -9.6%
> 	   3	    2136 	   1912		 -10.5%
> 	   4	    3166	   2830		 -10.6%
> 	   5	    3953	   3629		  -8.2%
> 	   6	    4628	   4405		  -4.8%
> 	   7	    5344	   5197		  -2.8%
> 	   8	    6065	   6004		  -1.0%
> 	   9	    6826	   6811		  -0.2%
> 	  10	    7599	   7599		   0.0%
> 	  15	    9757	   9766		  +0.1%
> 	  20	   13767	  13817		  +0.4%
> 
> With small number of contending threads, this patch can improve
> locking performance by up to 10%. With more contending threads,
> however, the gain diminishes.

Mind posting the microbenchmark?

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-10  7:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-09 15:19 [PATCH 0/2 v2] locking/qrwlock: Fix interrupt handling problem Waiman Long
2015-06-09 15:19 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] locking/qrwlock: Fix bug in interrupt handling code Waiman Long
2015-06-11 14:21   ` Will Deacon
2015-06-13  3:16     ` Waiman Long
2015-06-09 15:19 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING Waiman Long
2015-06-10  7:35   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-06-10 16:28     ` Waiman Long
2015-06-12  8:45       ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-12 22:58         ` Waiman Long
2015-06-19 17:59   ` [tip:locking/core] locking/qrwlock: Don' t " 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=20150610073512.GA17226@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=scott.norton@hp.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 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.