Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptivespinning

[Darren Hart]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 07:47 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 01:48, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >  try
> > >  spin
> > >  try
> > >  syscall
> > This is available for a long time in the mutex implementation
> > (PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP mutex type).  It hasn't show much
> > improvement if any.  There were some people demanding this support for
> > as far as I know they are not using it now.  This is adaptive
> > spinning, learning from previous calls how long to wait.  But it's
> > still unguided.  There is no way to get information like "the owner
> > has been descheduled". 
>
> That's where the FUTEX_LOCK thing comes in, it does all those, the above
> was a single spin loop to amortize the syscall overhead.
>
> I wouldn't make it any more complex than a single pause ins, syscalls
> are terribly cheap these days.

And yet they still seem to have a real impact on the futex_lock 
benchmark. Perhaps I am just still looking at pathological cases, but 
there is a strong correlation between high syscall counts and really low 
iterations per second. Granted this also correlates with lock 
contention. However, when using the same period and duty-cycle I find 
that a locking mechanism that makes significantly fewer syscalls also 
significantly outperforms one that makes more. Kind of handwavy stilly, 
I'll have more numbers this afternoon.

--
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/