From: Lihao Liang <lihaoliang@google.com> To: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@oracle.com>, longman@redhat.com Cc: linux@armlinux.org.uk, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, jglauber@marvell.com, dave.dice@oracle.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Lihao Liang <lihao.liang@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 01:39:38 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAC4j=Y8ZiCeZdj2CFVoBMH2j-Nen5f5PM0nwg+MR5OgDk7Hybw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <25401561-CD1F-4FDC-AED5-256EBE56B9F6@oracle.com> Hi Alex and Waiman, On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:02 PM Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi, Lihao. > > >>> > >>>> This is particularly relevant > >>>> in high contention situations when new threads keep arriving on the same > >>>> socket as the lock holder. > >>> In this case, the lock will stay on the same NUMA node/socket for > >>> 2^numa_spinlock_threshold times, which is the worst case scenario if we > >>> consider the long-term fairness. And if we have multiple nodes, it will take > >>> up to 2^numa_spinlock_threshold X (nr_nodes - 1) + nr_cpus_per_node > >>> lock transitions until any given thread will acquire the lock > >>> (assuming 2^numa_spinlock_threshold > nr_cpus_per_node). > >>> > >> > >> You're right that the latest version of the patch handles long-term fairness > >> deterministically. > >> > >> As I understand it, the n-th thread in the main queue is guaranteed to > >> acquire the lock after N lock handovers, where N is bounded by > >> > >> n - 1 + 2^numa_spinlock_threshold * (nr_nodes - 1) > >> > >> I'm not sure what role the variable nr_cpus_per_node plays in your analysis. > >> > >> Do I miss anything? > >> > > > > If I understand correctly, there are two phases in the algorithm: > > > > MCS phase: when the secondary queue is empty, as explained in your emails, > > the algorithm hands the lock to threads in the main queue in an FIFO order. > > When probably(SHUFFLE_REDUCTION_PROB_ARG) returns false (with default > > probability 1%), if the algorithm finds the first thread running on the same > > socket as the lock holder in cna_scan_main_queue(), it enters the following > > CNA phase > Yep. When probably() returns false, we scan the main queue. If as the result of > this scan the secondary queue becomes not empty, we enter what you call > the CNA phase. > As I understand it, the probability of making a transition from the MCS to CNA phase in less than N lock handovers is 1 - p^N, where p is the probability that probably() returns true (default 99%). So in high contention situations where N can become quite large in a relatively short period of time, the probability of getting into the CNA phase is high, e.g. 95% when N = 300. I was wondering whether it would be possible to detect contention and make a phase transition deterministically, maybe by reusing the intra_count variable to keep track of the processing rate in the MCS phase? As Will pointed out earlier, this would make formal analysis and verification of the CNA qspinlock much more feasible. > > . > > > > CNA phase: when the secondary queue is not empty, the algorithm keeps > > handing the lock to threads in the main queue that run on the same socket as > > the lock holder. When 2^numa_spinlock_threshold is reached, it splices > > the secondary queue to the front of the main queue. And we are back to the > > MCS phase above. > Correct. > > > For the n-th thread T in the main queue, the MCS phase handles threads that > > arrived in the main queue before T. In high contention situations, the CNA > > phase handles two kinds of threads: > > > > 1. Threads ahead of T that run on the same socket as the lock holder when > > a transition from the MCS to CNA phase was made. Assume there are m such > > threads. > > > > 2. Threads that keep arriving on the same socket as the lock holder. There > > are at most 2^numa_spinlock_threshold of them. > > > > Then the number of lock handovers in the CNA phase is max(m, > > 2^numa_spinlock_threshold). So the total number of lock handovers before T > > acquires the lock is at most > > > > n - 1 + 2^numa_spinlock_threshold * (nr_nodes - 1) > > > > Please let me know if I misunderstand anything. > I think you got it right (modulo nr_cpus_per_node instead of n, as mentioned in > my other response). > Make sense. Thanks a lot for the clarification :) Best, Lihao.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lihao Liang <lihaoliang@google.com> To: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@oracle.com>, longman@redhat.com Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, arnd@arndb.de, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, dave.dice@oracle.com, jglauber@marvell.com, x86@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lihao Liang <lihao.liang@gmail.com>, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com, tglx@linutronix.de, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 01:39:38 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAC4j=Y8ZiCeZdj2CFVoBMH2j-Nen5f5PM0nwg+MR5OgDk7Hybw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <25401561-CD1F-4FDC-AED5-256EBE56B9F6@oracle.com> Hi Alex and Waiman, On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:02 PM Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi, Lihao. > > >>> > >>>> This is particularly relevant > >>>> in high contention situations when new threads keep arriving on the same > >>>> socket as the lock holder. > >>> In this case, the lock will stay on the same NUMA node/socket for > >>> 2^numa_spinlock_threshold times, which is the worst case scenario if we > >>> consider the long-term fairness. And if we have multiple nodes, it will take > >>> up to 2^numa_spinlock_threshold X (nr_nodes - 1) + nr_cpus_per_node > >>> lock transitions until any given thread will acquire the lock > >>> (assuming 2^numa_spinlock_threshold > nr_cpus_per_node). > >>> > >> > >> You're right that the latest version of the patch handles long-term fairness > >> deterministically. > >> > >> As I understand it, the n-th thread in the main queue is guaranteed to > >> acquire the lock after N lock handovers, where N is bounded by > >> > >> n - 1 + 2^numa_spinlock_threshold * (nr_nodes - 1) > >> > >> I'm not sure what role the variable nr_cpus_per_node plays in your analysis. > >> > >> Do I miss anything? > >> > > > > If I understand correctly, there are two phases in the algorithm: > > > > MCS phase: when the secondary queue is empty, as explained in your emails, > > the algorithm hands the lock to threads in the main queue in an FIFO order. > > When probably(SHUFFLE_REDUCTION_PROB_ARG) returns false (with default > > probability 1%), if the algorithm finds the first thread running on the same > > socket as the lock holder in cna_scan_main_queue(), it enters the following > > CNA phase > Yep. When probably() returns false, we scan the main queue. If as the result of > this scan the secondary queue becomes not empty, we enter what you call > the CNA phase. > As I understand it, the probability of making a transition from the MCS to CNA phase in less than N lock handovers is 1 - p^N, where p is the probability that probably() returns true (default 99%). So in high contention situations where N can become quite large in a relatively short period of time, the probability of getting into the CNA phase is high, e.g. 95% when N = 300. I was wondering whether it would be possible to detect contention and make a phase transition deterministically, maybe by reusing the intra_count variable to keep track of the processing rate in the MCS phase? As Will pointed out earlier, this would make formal analysis and verification of the CNA qspinlock much more feasible. > > . > > > > CNA phase: when the secondary queue is not empty, the algorithm keeps > > handing the lock to threads in the main queue that run on the same socket as > > the lock holder. When 2^numa_spinlock_threshold is reached, it splices > > the secondary queue to the front of the main queue. And we are back to the > > MCS phase above. > Correct. > > > For the n-th thread T in the main queue, the MCS phase handles threads that > > arrived in the main queue before T. In high contention situations, the CNA > > phase handles two kinds of threads: > > > > 1. Threads ahead of T that run on the same socket as the lock holder when > > a transition from the MCS to CNA phase was made. Assume there are m such > > threads. > > > > 2. Threads that keep arriving on the same socket as the lock holder. There > > are at most 2^numa_spinlock_threshold of them. > > > > Then the number of lock handovers in the CNA phase is max(m, > > 2^numa_spinlock_threshold). So the total number of lock handovers before T > > acquires the lock is at most > > > > n - 1 + 2^numa_spinlock_threshold * (nr_nodes - 1) > > > > Please let me know if I misunderstand anything. > I think you got it right (modulo nr_cpus_per_node instead of n, as mentioned in > my other response). > Make sense. Thanks a lot for the clarification :) Best, Lihao. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-29 1:39 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-01-15 3:59 [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` [PATCH v9 1/5] locking/qspinlock: Rename mcs lock/unlock macros and make them more generic Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` [PATCH v9 2/5] locking/qspinlock: Refactor the qspinlock slow path Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` [PATCH v9 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-23 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 11:22 ` Will Deacon 2020-01-23 11:22 ` Will Deacon 2020-01-23 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 14:15 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 14:15 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-23 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-01-15 3:59 ` [PATCH v9 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-23 19:55 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 19:55 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 20:39 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 20:39 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 23:39 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-23 23:39 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` [PATCH v9 5/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce the shuffle reduction optimization " Alex Kogan 2020-01-15 3:59 ` Alex Kogan 2020-03-02 1:14 ` [locking/qspinlock] 7b6da71157: unixbench.score 8.4% improvement kernel test robot 2020-03-02 1:14 ` kernel test robot 2020-03-02 1:14 ` kernel test robot 2020-01-22 11:45 ` [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock Lihao Liang 2020-01-22 11:45 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-22 17:24 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-22 17:24 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 11:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-01-23 11:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-01-23 15:25 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 15:25 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 19:08 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-23 19:08 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-22 19:29 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-22 19:29 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-26 0:32 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-26 0:32 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-26 1:58 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-26 1:58 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-26 1:58 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-27 16:01 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-27 16:01 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-29 1:39 ` Lihao Liang [this message] 2020-01-29 1:39 ` Lihao Liang 2020-01-27 6:16 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-27 6:16 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-24 22:24 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-24 22:24 ` Paul E. McKenney [not found] ` <6AAE7FC6-F5DE-4067-8BC4-77F27948CD09@oracle.com> 2020-01-25 0:57 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-25 0:57 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-25 1:59 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-25 1:59 ` Waiman Long [not found] ` <adb4fb09-f374-4d64-096b-ba9ad8b35fd5@redhat.com> 2020-01-25 4:58 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-25 4:58 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-25 19:41 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-25 19:41 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-26 15:35 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-26 15:35 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-26 22:42 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-26 22:42 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-26 23:32 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-26 23:32 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-27 6:04 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-27 6:04 ` Alex Kogan 2020-01-27 14:11 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-27 14:11 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-27 15:09 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-01-27 15:09 ` Paul E. McKenney [not found] ` <9b3a3f16-5405-b6d1-d023-b85f4aab46dd@redhat.com> 2020-01-27 17:17 ` Waiman Long 2020-01-27 17:17 ` 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='CAC4j=Y8ZiCeZdj2CFVoBMH2j-Nen5f5PM0nwg+MR5OgDk7Hybw@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=lihaoliang@google.com \ --cc=alex.kogan@oracle.com \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=bp@alien8.de \ --cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \ --cc=dave.dice@oracle.com \ --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=jglauber@marvell.com \ --cc=lihao.liang@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \ --cc=longman@redhat.com \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ --cc=x86@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: 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.