RE: [PATCH] lockref: remove cpu_relax() again

[Luck, Tony]

> And there can't be any livelock, since by definition somebody else
> _did_ make progress. In fact, adding the cpu_relax() probably just
> makes things much less fair - once somebody else raced on you, the
> cpu_relax() now makes it more likely that _another_ cpu does so too.
>
> That said, let's see Tony's numbers are.

Data from 20 runs of "./t"

3.11 + Linus enabling patches, but ia64 not enabled (commit bc08b449ee14a from Linus tree).
mean 3469553.800000
min 3367709.000000
max 3494154.000000
stddev = 43613.722742

Now add ia64 enabling (including the cpu_relax())
mean 5509067.150000 // nice boost
min 3191639.000000 // worst case is worse than worst case before we made the change
max 6508629.000000
stddev = 793243.943875 // much more variation from run to run

Comment out the cpu_relax()
mean 2185864.400000 // this sucks
min 2141242.000000
max 2286505.000000
stddev = 40847.960152 // but it consistently sucks

So Linus is right that the cpu_relax() makes things less fair ... but without it performance sucks so
much that I don't want to use the clever cmpxchg at all - I'm much better off without it!

This may be caused by Itanium hyper-threading (SOEMT - switch on event multi-threading) where
the spinning thread means that its buddy retires no instructions until h/w times it out and forces
a switch.  But that's just a guess - losing the cacheline to whoever made the change that caused
the cmpxchg to fail should also force a thread switch.

-Tony
¢éì®&Þ~º&¶¬–+-±éÝ¥Šw®žË±Êâmébžìdz¹Þ)í…æèw*jg¬±¨¶‰šŽŠÝj/êäz¹ÞŠà2ŠÞ¨è­Ú&¢)ß«a¶Úþø®G«éh®æj:+v‰¨Šwè†Ù>Wš±êÞiÛaxPjØm¶ŸÿÃ-»+ƒùdš_