From: Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@marvell.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockref: Limit number of cmpxchg loop retries
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 07:27:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190607072652.GA5522@hc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190606102803.GA15499@hc>
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:28:12AM +0000, Jan Glauber wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:41:54AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:03:27AM +0000, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:16:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:49 AM Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Add an upper bound to the loop to force the fallback to spinlocks
> > > > > after some time. A retry value of 100 should not impact any hardware
> > > > > that does not have this issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > With the retry limit the performance of an open-close testcase
> > > > > improved between 60-70% on ThunderX2.
> > > >
> > > > Btw, did you do any kind of performance analysis across different
> > > > retry limit values?
> > >
> > > I tried 15/50/100/200/500, results were largely identical up to 100.
> > > For SMT=4 a higher retry value might be better, but unless we can add a
> > > sysctl value 100 looked like a good compromise to me.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm just getting confused pre-morning-coffee, but I thought the
> > original complaint (and the reason for this patch even existing) was that
> > when many CPUs were hammering the lockref then performance tanked? In which
> > case, increasing the threshold as the number of CPUs increases seems
> > counter-intuitive to me because it suggests that the larger the system,
> > the harder we should try to make the cmpxchg work.
>
> For SMT=4 the top hit I see is queued_spin_lock_slowpath(). Maybe this is more
> costly with more threads, so trying harder to use lockref-cmpxchg makes
> the microbenchmark faster in that case?
To clarify, with 224 threads & CPUs queued_spin_lock_slowpath is the top hit
even without a retry limit in lockref. This could be unrelated to the lockref
fallback, it looks like it's coming from the spinlock in:
do_sys_open -> get_unused_fd_flags -> __alloc_fd
--Jan
_______________________________________________
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:[~2019-06-07 7:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-29 14:52 [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64 Jan Glauber
2019-05-01 16:01 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-02 8:38 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 8:27 ` Jan Glauber
2019-05-02 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 23:19 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-03 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 6:13 ` [EXT] " Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-06 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 18:10 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-18 4:24 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-05-18 10:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-22 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-12 4:10 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-12 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 7:09 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-14 9:58 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-14 10:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-14 10:38 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-15 4:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 8:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-15 13:59 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-15 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-16 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-17 11:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-17 17:26 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-17 20:07 ` Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair
2019-06-18 5:41 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-13 9:53 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-05 13:48 ` [PATCH] lockref: Limit number of cmpxchg loop retries Jan Glauber
2019-06-05 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-06 8:03 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-06 9:41 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-06 10:28 ` Jan Glauber
2019-06-07 7:27 ` Jan Glauber [this message]
2019-06-07 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20190607072652.GA5522@hc \
--to=jglauber@marvell.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jglauber@cavium.com \
--cc=jnair@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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: 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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).