From: Michael Clark <michael@metaparadigm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: user-space concurrent pipe buffer scheduler interactions
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:53:34 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <969ccc0f-d909-4b45-908e-e98279777733@metaparadigm.com> (raw)
Folks,
I am working on a low latency cross-platform concurrent pipe buffer
using C11 threads and atomics. It is portable code using a <stdatomic.h>
polyfill on Windows that wraps the intrinsics that Microsoft provides.
There is a detailed write up with implementation details, source code,
tests and benchmark results in the URL here:
- https://github.com/michaeljclark/cpipe/
I have been eagerly following the work of Jens on io_uring which is why
I am including him as he may be interested in these scheduler findings,
because I am currently using busy memory polling for synchronization.
The reason why I am writing here, is that I think I now have a pretty
decent test case to test the Windows and Linux schedulers side-by-side.
Let's just say it has been an eye opening process and I think folks here
might be interested in what I am seeing and what we could predict should
happen based on Amdahl's Law and low-level cache ping-pong on atomics.
Let me cut to the chase. What I am observing is a situation where when I
add threads on Windows, performance increases, but when I add threads on
Linux, performance decreases. I don't know exactly why. I am wondering
if Windows is doing some topologically affine scheduling? or if it is
using performance counters to intuit scheduling decisions? I have
checked the codegen and it is basically two LOCK CMPXCHG instructions.
I ran bare metal tests on Kaby Lake and Skylake processors on both OSes:
- `Windows 11 Version 23H2 Build 22631.3296`
- `Linux 6.5.0-25-generic #25~22.04.1-Ubuntu`
In any case, here are numbers. I will let them speak for themselves:
# Minimum Latency (nanoseconds)
| | cpipe win11 | cpipe linux | linux pipes |
|:---------------------|------------:|------------:|------------:|
| Kaby Lake (i7-8550U) | ~219ns | ~362ns | ~7692ns |
| Skylake (i9-7980XE) | ~404ns | ~425ns | ~9183ns |
# Message Rate (messages per second)
| | cpipe win11 | cpipe linux | linux pipes |
|:---------------------|------------:|------------:|------------:|
| Kaby Lake (i7-8550U) | 4.55M | 2.71M | 129.62K |
| Skylake (i9-7980XE) | 2.47M | 2.35M | 108.89K |
# Bandwidth 32KB buffer (1-thread)
| | cpipe win11 | cpipe linux | linux pipes |
|:---------------------|------------:|------------:|------------:|
| Kaby Lake (i7-8550U) | 2.91GB/sec | 1.36GB/sec | 1.72GB/sec |
| Skylake (i9-7980XE) | 2.98GB/sec | 1.44GB/sec | 1.67GB/sec |
# Bandwidth 32KB buffer (4-threads)
| | cpipe win11 | cpipe linux |
|:---------------------|------------:|------------:|
| Kaby Lake (i7-8550U) | 5.56GB/sec | 0.79GB/sec |
| Skylake (i9-7980XE) | 7.11GB/sec | 0.89GB/sec |
I think we have a very useful test case here for the Linux scheduler. I
have been working on a generalization of memory polled user-space queue
and this is about the 5th iteration where I have been very careful about
modulo arithmetic and overflow as the normal case.
I know it is a little unfair to compare latency with Linux pipes and
also we waste a lot of time spinning on queue full. This is where we
would really like to use something like SENDUIPI, UMONITOR and UMWAIT
but I don't have access to silicon that supports those yet.
Regards,
Michael Clark
next reply other threads:[~2024-04-02 20:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-02 20:53 Michael Clark [this message]
2024-04-03 16:56 ` user-space concurrent pipe buffer scheduler interactions Linus Torvalds
2024-04-03 20:39 ` Michael Clark
2024-04-03 20:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-04 2:59 ` Michael Clark
2024-04-03 21:02 ` Michael Clark
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=969ccc0f-d909-4b45-908e-e98279777733@metaparadigm.com \
--to=michael@metaparadigm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 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).