From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Mutex: Avoid useless spinning
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44b112b8-829e-bcfd-4eac-fdd8362862ca@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522394093-9835-3-git-send-email-kemi.wang@intel.com>
On 30/03/2018 04:14, Kemi Wang wrote:
> Usually, we can't set too short time out while spinning on the lock, that
> probably makes a thread which is trying to acquire the lock go to sleep
> quickly, thus weakens the benefit of pthread adaptive spin lock.
>
> However, there is also a problem if we set the time out large in
> case of protecting a small critical section with severe lock contention.
> As we can see the test result in the last patch, the performance is highly
> effected by the spin count tunables, smaller spin count, better performance
> improvement. This is because the thread probably spins on the lock until
> timeout in severe lock contention before going to sleep.
>
> In this patch, we avoid the useless spin by making the spinner sleep
> if it fails to acquire the lock when the lock is available, as suggested
> by Tim Chen.
>
> nr_threads base COUNT=1000(head~1) COUNT=1000(head)
> 1 51644585 51323778(-0.6%) 51378551(-0.5%)
> 2 7914789 9867343(+24.7%) 11503559(+45.3%)
> 7 1687620 3430504(+103.3%) 7817383(+363.2%)
> 14 1026555 1843458(+79.6%) 7360883(+617.0%)
> 28 962001 681965(-29.1%) 5681945(+490.6%)
> 56 883770 364879(-58.7%) 3416068(+286.5%)
> 112 1150589 415261(-63.9%) 3255700(+183.0%)
As before [2], I checked the change on a 64 cores aarch64 machine, but
differently than previous patch this one seems to show improvements:
nr_threads base head(SPIN_COUNT=10) head(SPIN_COUNT=1000)
1 27566206 28776779 (4.206770) 28778073 (4.211078)
2 8498813 9129102 (6.904173) 7042975 (-20.670782)
7 5019434 5832195 (13.935765) 5098511 (1.550982)
14 4379155 6507212 (32.703053) 5200018 (15.785772)
28 4397464 4584480 (4.079329) 4456767 (1.330628)
56 4020956 3534899 (-13.750237) 4096197 (1.836850)
I would suggest you to squash both patch in only one for version 2.
>
> Suggested-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>
> ---
> nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c b/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
> index c3aca93..0faee1a 100644
> --- a/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
> +++ b/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
> @@ -127,22 +127,19 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
> int cnt = 0;
> int max_cnt = MIN (__mutex_aconf.spin_count,
> mutex->__data.__spins * 2 + 100);
> +
> + /* MO read while spinning */
> do
> - {
> - if (cnt >= max_cnt)
> - {
> - LLL_MUTEX_LOCK (mutex);
> - break;
> - }
> - /* MO read while spinning */
> - do
> - {
> - atomic_spin_nop ();
> - }
> - while (atomic_load_relaxed (&mutex->__data.__lock) != 0 &&
> + {
> + atomic_spin_nop ();
> + }
> + while (atomic_load_relaxed (&mutex->__data.__lock) != 0 &&
> ++cnt < max_cnt);
> - }
> - while (LLL_MUTEX_TRYLOCK (mutex) != 0);
> + /* Try to acquire the lock if lock is available or the spin count
> + * is run out, go to sleep if fails
> + */
> + if (LLL_MUTEX_TRYLOCK (mutex) != 0)
> + LLL_MUTEX_LOCK (mutex);
>
> mutex->__data.__spins += (cnt - mutex->__data.__spins) / 8;
> }
>
Please fix the format issue here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-05 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-30 7:17 [PATCH 1/3] Tunables: Add tunables of spin count for adaptive spin mutex Kemi Wang
2018-03-30 7:17 ` [PATCH 2/3] Mutex: Only read while spinning Kemi Wang
2018-04-05 20:55 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-04-08 8:30 ` kemi
2018-04-09 20:52 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-04-10 1:49 ` kemi
2018-04-11 13:28 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-03-30 7:17 ` [PATCH 3/3] Mutex: Avoid useless spinning Kemi Wang
2018-04-05 20:59 ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2018-04-08 8:33 ` kemi
2018-04-02 15:19 ` [PATCH 1/3] Tunables: Add tunables of spin count for adaptive spin mutex Adhemerval Zanella
2018-04-04 10:27 ` kemi
2018-04-04 17:17 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-04-05 1:11 ` Carlos O'Donell
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=44b112b8-829e-bcfd-4eac-fdd8362862ca@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.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).