Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock

From: Davidlohr Bueso
Date: Tue Jun 11 2013 - 13:53:19 EST

On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 17:51 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > OK, I haven't found a issue here yet, but youss are beiing trickssy! We
> > don't like trickssy, and we must find precccciouss!!!
> .. and I personally have my usual reservations. I absolutely hate
> papering over scalability issues, and historically whenever people
> have ever thought that we want complex spinlocks, the problem has
> always been that the locking sucks.
> So reinforced by previous events, I really feel that code that needs
> this kind of spinlock is broken and needs to be fixed, rather than
> actually introduce tricky spinlocks.
> So in order to merge something like this, I want (a) numbers for real
> loads and (b) explanations for why the spinlock users cannot be fixed.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I got some pretty bad aim7
performance numbers with this patch on an 8-socket (80 core) 256 Gb
memory DL980 box against a vanilla 3.10-rc4 kernel:

* shared workload:
10-100 users is in the noise area.
100-2000 users: -13% throughput.

* high_systime workload:
10-700 users is in the noise area.
700-2000 users: -55% throughput.

* disk:
10-100 users -57% throughput.
100-1000 users: -25% throughput
1000-2000 users: +8% throughput (this patch only benefits when we have a
lot of concurrency).

* custom:
10-100 users: -33% throughput.
100-2000 users: -46% throughput.

* alltests:
10-1000 users is in the noise area.
1000-2000 users: -10% throughput.

One notable exception is the short workload where we actually see
positive numbers:
10-100 users: +40% throughput.
100-2000 users: +69% throughput.


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