Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptivespinning
From: Darren Hart
Date: Mon Apr 05 2010 - 17:54:24 EST
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/05/2010 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
NOT FOR INCLUSION
The following patch series implements a new experimental kernel side
via new FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_LOCK_ADAPTIVE futex op codes. The
follows the kernel mutex model of allowing one spinner until the lock is
released or the owner is descheduled. The patch currently allows the
specify if they want no spinning, a single adaptive spinner, or multiple
spinners (aggressive adaptive spinning, or aas... which I have
mistyped as "ass"
enough times to realize a better term is indeed required :-).
An interesting (but perhaps difficult to achieve) optimization would be
to spin in userspace.
I couldn't think of a lightweight way to determine when the owner has
been scheduled out in userspace. Kernel assistance is required. You
could do this on the schedule() side of things, but I figured I'd get
some strong pushback if I tried to add a hook into descheduling that
flipped a bit in the futex value stating the owner was about to
deschedule(). Still, that might be something to explore.
How many cores (or hardware threads) does this machine have?
Sorry, I meant to include that. I tested on an 8 CPU (no hardware
threads) 2.6 GHz Opteron 2218 (2 QuadCore CPUs) system.
> At 10%
duty cycle you have 25 waiters behind the lock on average. I don't
think this is realistic, and it means that spinning is invoked only rarely.
Perhaps some instrumentation is in order, it seems to get invoked enough
to achieve some 20% increase in lock/unlock iterations. Perhaps another
metric would be of more value - such as average wait time?
I'd be interested in seeing runs where the average number of waiters is
0.2, 0.5, 1, and 2, corresponding to moderate-to-bad contention.
25 average waiters on compute bound code means the application needs to be
rewritten, no amount of mutex tweaking will help it.
Perhaps something NR_CPUS threads would be of more interest? At 10%
that's about .8 and at 25% the 2 of your upper limit. I could add a few
more duty-cycle points and make 25% the max. I'll kick that off and post
the results... probably tomorrow, 10M iterations takes a while, but
makes the results relatively stable.
Does the wakeup code select the spinning waiter, or just a random waiter?
The wakeup code selects the highest priority task in fifo order to
wake-up - however, under contention it is most likely going to go back
to sleep as another waiter will steal the lock out from under it. This
locking strategy is unashamedly about as "unfair" as it gets.
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
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/