Re: [PATCH] NUMA spinlock [BZ #23962]

["马凌(彦军)" <ling.ml@antfin.com>]

Hi Florian,

Thanks for your comments!

We test numa spinlock on 2s-Kunpeng 920 platform ,128 physical arm cores with 256G RAM as below.

$./tst-variable-overhead 
Number of processors: 128, Single thread time 11657100

Number of threads:    2, Total time       33449020, Overhead: 1.43
Number of threads:    4, Total time      135449160, Overhead: 2.90
Number of threads:    8, Total time     1146508900, Overhead: 12.29
Number of threads:   16, Total time     6725395660, Overhead: 36.06
Number of threads:   32, Total time    37197114800, Overhead: 99.72
Number of threads:   64, Total time   501098134360, Overhead: 671.66
Number of threads:  128, Total time  2588795930500, Overhead: 1734.99
Number of threads:  256, Total time 14987969840860, Overhead: 5022.41
Number of threads:  384, Total time 31444706737160, Overhead: 7024.67
Number of threads:  512, Total time 60079858502060, Overhead: 10066.27 

2. numa spinlock
$./tst-numa-variable-overhead
Number of processors: 128, Single thread time 12647780

Number of threads:    2, Total time       36606840, Overhead: 1.45
Number of threads:    4, Total time      115740060, Overhead: 2.29
Number of threads:    8, Total time      604662840, Overhead: 5.98
Number of threads:   16, Total time     2285066760, Overhead: 11.29
Number of threads:   32, Total time     8533264240, Overhead: 21.08
Number of threads:   64, Total time    72671073600, Overhead: 89.78
Number of threads:  128, Total time   287805932560, Overhead: 177.78
Number of threads:  256, Total time   837367226760, Overhead: 258.62
Number of threads:  384, Total time  1954243727660, Overhead: 402.38
Number of threads:  512, Total time  3523015939200, Overhead: 544.04
 
The above data tell us the numa spinlock improve performance upto 17X with 512 threads on arm platform.
And numa spinlock should improve spinlock performance on all multi-socket systems.

Thanks
Ling

在 2019/1/4 上午3:59，“H.J. Lu”<hjl.tools@gmail.com> 写入:

    On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 6:52 AM Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com> wrote:
    >
    > On 03/01/2019 05:35, 马凌(彦军) wrote:
    > >      create mode 100644 manual/examples/numa-spinlock.c
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa-spinlock-private.h
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa-spinlock.c
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa-spinlock.h
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa_spinlock_alloc.c
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-numa-variable-overhead.c
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-variable-overhead-skeleton.c
    > >      create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-variable-overhead.c
    >
    > as far as i can tell the new code is generic
    > (other than the presence of efficient getcpu),
    > so i think the test should be generic too.
    >
    > >     --- /dev/null
    > >     +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-variable-overhead-skeleton.c
    > >     @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
    > ...
    > >     +/* Check spinlock overhead with large number threads.  Critical region is
    > >     +   very smmall.  Critical region + spinlock overhead aren't noticeable
    > >     +   when number of threads is small.  When thread number increases,
    > >     +   spinlock overhead become the bottleneck.  It shows up in wall time
    > >     +   of thread execution.  */
    >
    > yeah, this is not easy to do in a generic way, i think
    > even on x86 such measurement is problematic, you don't
    > know what goes on a system (or vm) when the glibc test
    > is running.
    >
    > but doing precise timing is not that important for
    > checking the correctness of the locks, so i think a
    > simplified version can be generic test code.
    
    Here is the updated patch to make tests generic.
    
    -- 
    H.J.