Re: [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jan 31 2013 - 04:39:43 EST
* Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We(Linux Kernel Performance project) found a regression introduced by
> commit 5a50508, which just convert all mutex lock to rwsem write lock.
> The semantics is same, but the results is quite huge in some cases.
> After investigation, we found the root cause: mutex support lock
> stealing. Here is the link for the detailed regression report:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84
>
> Ingo suggests to add write lock stealing to rwsem as well:
> "I think we should allow lock-steal between rwsem writers - that
> will not hurt fairness as most rwsem fairness concerns relate to
> reader vs. writer fairness"
>
> I then tried it with rwsem-spinlock first as I found it much easier to
> implement it than lib/rwsem.c. And here I sent out this patch first for
> comments. I'd try lib/rwsem.c later once the change to rwsem-spinlock
> is OK to you guys.
>
> With this patch, we got a double performance increase in one test box
> with following aim7 workfile:
> FILESIZE: 1M
> POOLSIZE: 10M
> 10 fork_test
>
> some /usr/bin/time output w/o patch some /usr/bin/time_output with patch
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Percent of CPU this job got: 369% Percent of CPU this job got: 537%
> Voluntary context switches: 640595016 Voluntary context switches: 157915561
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You will see we got a 45% increase of CPU usage and saves about 3/4
> voluntary context switches.
>
>
> Here is the .nr_running filed for all CPUs from /proc/sched_debug.
>
> output w/o this patch:
> ----------------------
> cpu 00: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 01: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 02: 0 0 ... 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 .... 1 1
> cpu 03: 0 0 ... 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 04: 0 1 ... 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 .... 1 0
> cpu 05: 0 1 ... 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 06: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 .... 0 0
> cpu 07: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 .... 1 0
> cpu 08: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 .... 0 1
> cpu 09: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 .... 0 1
> cpu 10: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 .... 1 2
> cpu 11: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 .... 1 2
> cpu 12: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 .... 1 0
> cpu 13: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 .... 1 1
> cpu 14: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 .... 1 0
> cpu 15: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 .... 0 0
>
> output with this patch:
> -----------------------
> cpu 00: 0 0 ... 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 .... 1 3
> cpu 01: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 .... 1 3
> cpu 02: 0 0 ... 2 2 3 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 03: 0 0 ... 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 04: 0 1 ... 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 05: 0 1 ... 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 06: 0 0 ... 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 .... 2 1
> cpu 07: 0 0 ... 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 .... 2 1
> cpu 08: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 09: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 10: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 11: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 .... 1 0
> cpu 12: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 .... 2 1
> cpu 13: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 .... 2 0
> cpu 14: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 .... 2 2
> cpu 15: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 .... 2 2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Where you can see that CPU is much busier with this patch.
That looks really good - quite similar to how it behaved with
mutexes, right?
Does this recover most of the performance regression?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/