linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for anon-vma tree
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:22:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1371486122.1778.14.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51BD8A77.2080201@intel.com>

On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 17:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/14/2013 07:43 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > I was hoping that the lack of spin on owner was the main difference with
> > rwsems and am/was in the middle of implementing it. Could you send your
> > patch so I can give it a try on my workloads?
> > 
> > Note that there have been a few recent (3.10) changes to mutexes that
> > give a nice performance boost, specially on large systems, most
> > noticeably:
> > 
> > commit 2bd2c92c (mutex: Make more scalable by doing less atomic
> > operations)
> > 
> > commit 0dc8c730 (mutex: Queue mutex spinners with MCS lock to reduce
> > cacheline contention)
> > 
> > It might be worth looking into doing something similar to commit
> > 0dc8c730, in addition to the optimistic spinning.
> 
> It is a good tunning for large machine. I just following what the commit 
> 0dc8c730 done, give a RFC patch here. I tried it on my NHM EP machine. seems no
> clear help on aim7. but maybe it is helpful on large machine.  :)

After a lot of benchmarking, I finally got the ideal results for aim7,
so far: this patch + optimistic spinning with preemption disabled. Just
like optimistic spinning, this patch by itself makes little to no
difference, yet combined is where we actually outperform 3.10-rc5. In
addition, I noticed extra throughput when disabling preemption in
try_optimistic_spin().

With i_mmap as a rwsem and these changes I could see performance
benefits for alltests (+14.5%), custom (+17%), disk (+11%), high_systime
(+5%), shared (+15%) and short (+4%), most of them after around 500
users, for fewer users, it made little to no difference.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

> 
> 
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h b/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
> index bb1e2cd..240729a 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
> @@ -70,11 +70,11 @@ static inline void __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  
>  static inline int __down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> -	long tmp;
> +	if (unlikely(&sem->count != RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE))
> +		return 0;
>  
> -	tmp = cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,
> -		      RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
> -	return tmp == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
> +	return cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,
> +		      RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
> index 19c5fa9..9e54e20 100644
> --- a/lib/rwsem.c
> +++ b/lib/rwsem.c
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  	struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
>  	struct task_struct *tsk;
>  	struct list_head *next;
> -	long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
> +	long woken, loop, adjustment;
>  
>  	waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
>  	if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  			 * will block as they will notice the queued writer.
>  			 */
>  			wake_up_process(waiter->task);
> -		goto out;
> +		return sem;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Writers might steal the lock before we grant it to the next reader.
> @@ -85,15 +85,28 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  	adjustment = 0;
>  	if (wake_type != RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED) {
>  		adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
> - try_reader_grant:
> -		oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem) - adjustment;
> -		if (unlikely(oldcount < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
> -			/* A writer stole the lock. Undo our reader grant. */
> +		while (1) {
> +			long oldcount;
> +
> +			/* A writer stole the lock. */
> +			if (unlikely(sem->count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK))
> +				return sem;
> +
> +			if (unlikely(sem->count < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
> +				cpu_relax();
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +
> +			oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem)
> +								- adjustment;
> +			if (likely(oldcount >= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS))
> +				break;
> +
> +			 /* A writer stole the lock.  Undo our reader grant. */
>  			if (rwsem_atomic_update(-adjustment, sem) &
>  						RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
> -				goto out;
> +				return sem;
>  			/* Last active locker left. Retry waking readers. */
> -			goto try_reader_grant;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> @@ -136,7 +149,6 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  	sem->wait_list.next = next;
>  	next->prev = &sem->wait_list;
>  
> - out:
>  	return sem;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> Thanks
>     Alex
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-17 16:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1371165333.27102.568.camel@schen9-DESK>
     [not found] ` <1371167015.1754.14.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
2013-06-14 16:09   ` Tim Chen
2013-06-14 22:31     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-14 22:44       ` Tim Chen
2013-06-14 22:47       ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-06-17 22:27         ` Tim Chen
2013-06-16  9:50   ` Alex Shi
2013-06-17 16:22     ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2013-06-17 18:45       ` Tim Chen
2013-06-17 19:05         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-17 22:28           ` Tim Chen
2013-06-17 23:18         ` Alex Shi
2013-06-17 23:20       ` Alex Shi
2013-06-17 23:35         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-18  0:08           ` Tim Chen
2013-06-19 23:11             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-19 23:24               ` Tim Chen
2013-06-13 23:26 Tim Chen
2013-06-19 13:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-19 16:53   ` Tim Chen
2013-06-26  0:19     ` Tim Chen
2013-06-26  9:51       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-26 21:36         ` Tim Chen
2013-06-27  0:25           ` Tim Chen
2013-06-27  8:36             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-27 20:53               ` Tim Chen
2013-06-27 23:31                 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-28  9:38                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-28 21:04                     ` Tim Chen
2013-06-29  7:12                       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-01 20:28                         ` Tim Chen
2013-07-02  6:45                           ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-16 17:53                             ` Tim Chen
2013-07-23  9:45                               ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-23  9:51                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-23  9:53                                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-30  0:13                                     ` Tim Chen
2013-07-30 19:24                                       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-08-05 22:08                                         ` Tim Chen
2013-07-30 19:59                                       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-30 20:34                                         ` Tim Chen
2013-07-30 21:45                                           ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-08-06 23:55                                       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-08-07  0:56                                         ` Tim Chen
2013-08-12 18:52                                           ` Ingo Molnar
2013-08-12 20:10                                             ` Tim Chen
2013-06-28  9:20                 ` Ingo Molnar

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=1371486122.1778.14.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net \
    --to=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=walken@google.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