Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptivespinning

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/06/2010 01:59 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > 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? 
> >
> > That seems artificial.
>
> How so? Several real world applications use one thread per CPU to 
> dispatch work to, wait for events, etc.

Yes, but that's the best case for spinning.  You could simply use a 
userspace spinlock in this case.


> > > > 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.
> >
> > Best to avoid the wakeup if we notice the lock was stolen.
>
> You really can't do this precisely. You can read the futex value at 
> various points along the wakeup path, but at some point you have to 
> commit to waking a task, and you still have a race between the time 
> you wake_up_task() and when it is scheduled and attempts the cmpxchg 
> itself.

The race is not a problem as it's just an optimization.  If you lose it 
you get a spurious wakeup, if you win you save some cpu cycles.


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/