Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions

From: Darren Hart
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 13:10:22 EST


Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/01/2010 06:54 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
A lock(); unlock(); loop spends most of its time with the lock held or contended. Can you something like this:


lock();
for (i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
unlock();
for (i = 0; i < 10000; ++i)
asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");



Great idea. I'll be doing a more rigorous investigation on this of course, but I thought I'd share the results of just dumping this into the testcase:

# ./futex_lock -i10000000
futex_lock: Measure FUTEX_LOCK operations per second
Arguments: iterations=10000000 threads=256 adaptive=0
Result: 420 Kiter/s
lock calls: 9999872
lock syscalls: 665824 (6.66%)
unlock calls: 9999872
unlock syscalls: 861240 (8.61%)

# ./futex_lock -a -i10000000
futex_lock: Measure FUTEX_LOCK operations per second
Arguments: iterations=10000000 threads=256 adaptive=1
Result: 426 Kiter/s
lock calls: 9999872
lock syscalls: 558787 (5.59%)
unlock calls: 9999872
unlock syscalls: 603412 (6.03%)

This is the first time I've seen adaptive locking have an advantage! The second set of runs showed a slightly greater advantage. Note that this was still with spinners being limited to one.

Question - do all threads finish at the same time, or wildly different times?

I'm not sure, I can add some fairness metrics to the test that will help characterize how that's working. My suspicion is that there will be several threads that don't make any progress until the very end - since adaptive spinning is an "unfair" locking technique.

--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/