On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:13 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:Steven Rostedt wrote:On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 16:21 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Adaptive spinning is indeed hoping the lock will become free while you are spinning and checking it's owner...
o What type of lock hold times do we expect to benefit?0 (that's a zero) :-p
I haven't seen your patches but you are not doing a heuristic approach,
are you? That is, do not "spin" hoping the lock will suddenly become
free. I was against that for -rt and I would be against that for futex
I'm talking about the original idea people had of "lets spin for 50us
and hope it is unlocked before then", which I thought was not a good
It does exactly this.o How much contention is a good match for adaptive spinning?Again, I don't know how you implemented your adaptive spinners, but the
- this is related to the number of threads to run in the test
o How many spinners should be allowed?
I can share the kernel patches if people are interested, but they are really early, and I'm not sure they are of much value until I better understand the conditions where this is expected to be useful.
trick to it in -rt was that it would only spin while the owner of the
lock was actually running. If it was not running, it would sleep. No
point waiting for a sleeping task to release its lock.
OK, that's good.
Is this what you did? Because, IIRC, this only benefited spinlocksTrouble is, I'm still seeing performance penalties even on the shortest critical section possible (lock();unlock();)
converted to mutexes. It did not help with semaphores, because
semaphores could be held for a long time. Thus, it was good for short
held locks, but hurt performance on long held locks.
performance penalties compared to what? not having adaptive at all?