Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor

From: Rafael Aquini
Date: Sun Dec 23 2012 - 18:09:21 EST

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:58:48PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 10:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:51:35PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>However, since spinlock contention should not be the
> >>usual state, and all a scalable lock does is make sure
> >>that N+1 CPUs does not perform worse than N CPUs, using
> >>scalable locks is a stop-gap measure.
> >>
> >>I believe a stop-gap measure should be kept as simple as
> >>we can. I am willing to consider moving to a per-lock
> >>delay factor if we can figure out an easy way to do it,
> >>but I would like to avoid too much extra complexity...
> >
> >Rik,
> >
> >I like your solution. It's rather simple and simple solutions tend to
> >end up being the closest to optimal. The more complex a solution gets,
> >the more it starts chasing fireflies.
> >Anyway, I'd like to see this code tested, and more benchmarks run
> >against it.
> Absolutely. I would love to see if this code actually
> causes regressions anywhere.
> It is simple enough that I suspect it will not, but there
> really is only one way to find out.
> The more people test this with different workloads on
> different SMP systems, the better.

Great work Rik,

I have a couple of small SMP systems I'll start to test with your patches, also
I might be able to test this work after new year's eve on a big SMP box that
seems to be facing a severe lock starvation issue due to the BUS saturation
your work is aiming to reduce.

-- Rafael
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at