Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucketplist in futex_wake()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Wouldn't something like the below also work?

> -#define FUTEX_HASHBITS (CONFIG_BASE_SMALL ? 4 : 8)
> -
>  /*
>   * Futex flags used to encode options to functions and preserve them across
>   * restarts.
> @@ -149,9 +147,11 @@ static const struct futex_q futex_q_init = {
>  struct futex_hash_bucket {
>  	spinlock_t lock;
>  	struct plist_head chain;
> -};
> +} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>  
> -static struct futex_hash_bucket futex_queues[1<<FUTEX_HASHBITS];
> +static unsigned long __read_mostly futex_hashsize;
> +
> +static struct futex_hash_bucket *futex_queues;
>  
>  /*
>   * We hash on the keys returned from get_futex_key (see below).
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static struct futex_hash_bucket *hash_futex(union futex_key *key)
>  	u32 hash = jhash2((u32*)&key->both.word,
>  			  (sizeof(key->both.word)+sizeof(key->both.ptr))/4,
>  			  key->both.offset);
> -	return &futex_queues[hash & ((1 << FUTEX_HASHBITS)-1)];
> +	return &futex_queues[hash & (futex_hashsize - 1)];
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -2735,6 +2735,16 @@ static int __init futex_init(void)
>  	u32 curval;
>  	int i;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BASE_SMALL
> +	futex_hashsize = 16;
> +#else
> +	futex_hashsize = roundup_pow_of_two(256 * num_possible_cpus());
> +#endif
> +
> +	futex_queues = alloc_large_system_hash("futex", sizeof(*futex_queues),
> +			futex_hashsize, 0, futex_hashsize < 256 ? HASH_SMALL : 0,
> +			NULL, NULL, futex_hashsize, futex_hashsize);
> +

Two observations:

1)

Once we go dynamic hash here we might as well do a proper job: I think 
we should also scale up by RAM as well.

A 64 GB computing node with 64 cores should probably not not scale the 
same way as a 64 TB system with 64 cores, right?

Something like += log2(memory_per_node / 1GB) ? I.e. every doubling in 
the per node gigabytes adds one more bit to the hash, or so.

2)

But more importantly, since these are all NUMA systems, would it make 
sense to create per node hashes on NUMA? Each futex would be enqueued 
into the hash belonging to its own page's node.

That kind of separation would both reduce the collision count, and it 
would also reduce the cost of a collision. (it would slightly increase 
hash calculation cost.)

(It also makes hash size calculation nicely node count independent, 
we'd only consider per node CPU count and per node memory.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/