Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor

[Michel Lespinasse]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/26/2012 02:10 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> We might try to use a hash on lock address, and an array of 16 different
>> delays so that different spinlocks have a chance of not sharing the same
>> delay.
>>
>> With following patch, I get 982 Mbits/s with same bench, so an increase
>> of 45 % instead of a 13 % regression.

Awesome :)

> I will probably keep it as a separate patch 4/4, with
> your report and performance numbers in it, to preserve
> the reason why we keep multiple hashed values, etc...
>
> There is enough stuff in this code that will be
> indishinguishable from magic if we do not document it
> properly...

If we go with per-spinlock tunings, I feel we'll most likely want to
add an associative cache in order to avoid the 1/16 chance (~6%) of
getting 595Mbit/s instead of 982Mbit/s when there is a hash collision.

I would still prefer if we could make up something that didn't require
per-spinlock tunings, but it's not clear if that'll work. At least we
now know of a simple enough workload to figure it out :)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/