Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:27:41 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:25:05 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > The current cpu hotplug lock is a single global lock; therefore 
> > > excluding hotplug is a very expensive proposition even though it is 
> > > rare occurrence under normal operation.
> > > 
> > > There is a desire for a more light weight implementation of 
> > > {get,put}_online_cpus() from both the NUMA scheduling as well as the 
> > > -RT side.
> > > 
> > > The current hotplug lock is a full reader preference lock -- and thus 
> > > supports reader recursion. However since we're making the read side 
> > > lock much cheaper it is the expectation that it will also be used far 
> > > more. Which in turn would lead to writer starvation.
> > > 
> > > Therefore the new lock proposed is completely fair; albeit somewhat 
> > > expensive on the write side. This in turn means that we need a 
> > > per-task nesting count to support reader recursion.
> > 
> > This is a lot of code and a lot of new complexity.  It needs some pretty 
> > convincing performance numbers to justify its inclusion, no?
> 
> Should be fairly straightforward to test: the sys_sched_getaffinity() and 
> sys_sched_setaffinity() syscalls both make use of 
> get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus(), so a testcase frobbing affinities on 
> N CPUs in parallel ought to demonstrate scalability improvements pretty 
> nicely.

Well, an in-kernel microbenchmark which camps in a loop doing get/put
would measure this as well.

But neither approach answers the question "how useful is this patchset".
--
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/