Re: [mm/page_alloc] f26b3fa046: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -18.0% regression

From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"ying.huang@intel.com" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
	Zhengjun Xing <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>,
	fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [mm/page_alloc] f26b3fa046: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -18.0% regression
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 14:47:02 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56474c28-e62a-36b1-257b-9e5ffb11b0e2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjguW5nxjagV99GHvc_-E_7mSg+LMvGtFjJ9LUSx4Skig@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/10/22 14:05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Adding locking people in case they have any input ]
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:23 PM ying.huang@intel.com
> <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Can you point me to the regression report? I would like to take a look,
>>> thanks.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1425108604.10337.84.camel@linux.intel.com/
> Hmm.
>
> That explanation looks believable, except that our qspinlocks
> shouldn't be spinning on the lock itself, but spinning on the mcs node
> it inserts into the lock.
>
> Or so I believed before I looked closer at the code again (it's been years).
>
> It turns out we spin on the lock itself if we're the "head waiter". So
> somebody is always spinning.
>
> That's a bit unfortunate for this workload, I guess.
>
> I think from a pure lock standpoint, it's the right thing to do (no
> unnecessary bouncing, with the lock releaser doing just one write, and
> the head waiter spinning on it is doing the right thing).
>
> But I think this is an example of where you end up having that
> spinning on the lock possibly then being a disturbance on the other
> fields around the lock.
>
> I wonder if Waiman / PeterZ / Will have any comments on that. Maybe
> that "spin on the lock itself" is just fundamentally the only correct
> thing, but since my initial reaction was "no, we're spinning on the
> mcs node", maybe that would be _possible_?
>
> We do have a lot of those spinlocks embedded in other data structures
> cases. And if "somebody else is waiting for the lock" contends badly
> with "the lock holder is doing a lot of writes close to the lock",
> then that's not great.

Qspinlock still has one head waiter spinning on the lock. This is much 
better than the original ticket spinlock where there will be n waiters 
spinning on the lock. That is the cost of a cheap unlock. There is no 
way to eliminate all lock spinning unless we use MCS lock directly which 
will require a change in locking API as well as more expensive unlock.

Cheers,
Longman