Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 17:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:33:47PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > 
> >  - For the above, can you show (or describe) where the qspinlock
> >    improves things compared to our current locks.
> So currently PPC has a fairly straight forward test-and-set spinlock
> IIRC. You have this because LPAR/virt muck and lock holder preemption
> issues etc..
> qspinlock is 1) a fair lock (like ticket locks) and 2) provides
> out-of-word spinning, reducing cacheline pressure.

Thanks Peter. I think I understand the theory, but I'd like see it
translate into real numbers.

> Esp. on multi-socket x86 we saw the out-of-word spinning being a big win
> over our ticket locks.
> 
> And fairness, brought to us by the ticket locks a long time ago,
> eliminated starvation issues we had, where a spinner local to the holder
> would 'always' win from a spinner further away. So under heavy enough
> local contention, the spinners on 'remote' CPUs would 'never' get to own
> the lock.

I think our HW has tweaks to avoid that from happening with the simple
locks in the underlying ll/sc implementation. In any case, what I'm
asking is actual tests to verify it works as expected for us.

> pv-qspinlock tries to preserve the fairness while allowing limited lock
> stealing and explicitly managing which vcpus to wake.

Right.
> > 
> > 	While there's
> >    theory and to some extent practice on x86, it would be nice to
> >    validate the effects on POWER.
> Right; so that will have to be from benchmarks which I cannot help you
> with ;-)

Precisely :-) This is what I was asking for ;-)

Cheers,
Ben.