From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Waiman Long' <longman@redhat.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 5/5] locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:11:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5fe76531782f4a8492b341d5f381147b@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee34bc01-9fef-23ff-ada1-1ec2d39533c9@redhat.com>
From: Waiman Long
> Sent: 19 November 2020 18:40
...
> My own testing also show not too much performance difference when
> removing reader spinning except in the lightly loaded cases.
I'm confused.
I got massive performance improvements from changing a driver
we have to use mutex instead of the old semaphores (the driver
was written a long time ago).
While these weren't 'rw' the same issue will apply.
The problem was that the semaphore/mutex was typically only held over
a few instructions (eg to add an item to a list).
But with semaphore if you got contention the process always slept.
OTOH mutex spin 'for a while' before sleeping so the code rarely slept.
So I really expect that readers need to spin (for a while) if
a rwsem (etc) is locked for writing.
Clearly you really need a CBU (Crystal Ball Unit) to work out
whether to spin or not.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-20 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-18 3:04 [PATCH 0/5] locking/rwsem: Rework reader optimistic spinning Waiman Long
2020-11-18 3:04 ` [PATCH 1/5] locking/rwsem: Pass the current atomic count to rwsem_down_read_slowpath() Waiman Long
2020-11-18 3:04 ` [PATCH 2/5] locking/rwsem: Prevent potential lock starvation Waiman Long
2020-11-20 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 17:27 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-18 3:04 ` [PATCH 3/5] locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic lock stealing Waiman Long
2020-11-20 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 17:26 ` Waiman Long
2020-12-08 3:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-18 3:04 ` [PATCH 4/5] locking/rwsem: Wake up all waiting readers if RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED Waiman Long
2020-11-18 4:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-19 18:37 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-18 3:04 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning Waiman Long
2020-11-18 5:35 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-19 18:40 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-20 13:11 ` David Laight [this message]
2020-11-20 17:04 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-20 17:37 ` David Laight
2020-11-20 21:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-21 11:50 ` David Laight
2020-11-20 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 22:39 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-19 0:47 ` kernel test robot
2020-11-20 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=5fe76531782f4a8492b341d5f381147b@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@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 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.