Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor

[Rik van Riel]

On 01/03/2013 12:17 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > > +               if (!(head % 7) && delay < MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY)
> > > +                       delay++;
> > > +
> > > +               loops = delay * waiters_ahead;
> >
> > I don't like the head % 7 thing. I think using fixed point arithmetic
> > would be nicer:
> >
> > if (delay < MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY)
> >    delay += 256/7; /* Or whatever constant we choose */
> >
> > loops = (delay * waiter_ahead) >> 8;
>
> I'll do that. That could get completely rid of any artifacts
> caused by incrementing sometimes, and not other times.
>
> > Also, we should probably skip the delay increment on the first loop
> > iteration - after all, we haven't waited yet, so we can't say that the
> > delay was too short.
>
> Good point. I will do that.

> I will build a kernel with the things you pointed out fixed,
> and will give it a spin this afternoon.
>
> Expect new patches soonish :)

After implementing all the ideas you came up with, which made
perfect sense to me, the code performs significantly worse
than before.

*sigh*

New patches will be coming ... later.

--
All rights reversed
--
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/