From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Oleh Derevenko <oleh.derevenko@gmail.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,
"Paul A . Clarke" <pc@us.ibm.com>,
Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 0/3] Optimize CAS [BZ #28537]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:41:50 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211110184153.2269857-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> (raw)
Changes in v5:
1. Put back __glibc_unlikely in __lll_trylock and lll_cond_trylock.
2. Remove an atomic load in a CAS usage which has been already optimized.
3. Add an empty statement with a semicolon to a goto label for older
compiler versions.
4. Simplify CAS optimization.
CAS instruction is expensive. From the x86 CPU's point of view, getting
a cache line for writing is more expensive than reading. See Appendix
A.2 Spinlock in:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/xeon-lock-scaling-analysis-paper.pdf
The full compare and swap will grab the cache line exclusive and cause
excessive cache line bouncing.
Optimize CAS in low level locks and pthread_mutex_lock.c:
1. Do an atomic load and skip CAS if compare may fail to reduce cache
line bouncing on contended locks.
2. Replace atomic_compare_and_exchange_bool_acq with
atomic_compare_and_exchange_val_acq to avoid the extra load.
This is the first patch set to optimize CAS. I will submit the rest
CAS optimizations in glibc after this patch set has been accepted.
With all CAS optimizations applied, on a machine with 112 cores,
"make check -j28" under heavy load took
3093.18user 1644.12system 22:26.05elapsed 351%CPU
vs without CAS optimizations
3746.07user 1614.93system 22:02.91elapsed 405%CPU
H.J. Lu (3):
Reduce CAS in low level locks [BZ #28537]
Reduce CAS in __pthread_mutex_lock_full [BZ #28537]
Optimize CAS in __pthread_mutex_lock_full [BZ #28537]
nptl/lowlevellock.c | 12 ++++-----
nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
sysdeps/nptl/lowlevellock.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++--------
3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
--
2.33.1
next reply other threads:[~2021-11-10 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-10 18:41 H.J. Lu [this message]
2021-11-10 18:41 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] Reduce CAS in low level locks " H.J. Lu
2021-11-10 18:41 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] Reduce CAS in __pthread_mutex_lock_full " H.J. Lu
2021-11-10 18:41 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] Optimize " H.J. Lu
2021-11-10 20:23 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] Optimize CAS " Paul A. Clarke
2021-11-10 20:53 ` H.J. Lu
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=20211110184153.2269857-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=goldstein.w.n@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=oleh.derevenko@gmail.com \
--cc=pc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=schwab@linux-m68k.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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).