Re: [PATCH 0/2] rwsem: performance enhancements for systems withmany cores

[Tim Chen]

On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:43 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:25 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 16:51 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > >> In this patchset, we introduce two optimizations to read write semaphore.
> > >> The first one reduces cache bouncing of the sem->count field
> > >> by doing a pre-read of the sem->count and avoid cmpxchg if possible.
> > >> The second patch introduces similar optimistic spining logic in
> > >> the mutex code for the writer lock acquisition of rw-sem.
> > >>
> > >> Combining the two patches, in testing by Davidlohr Bueso on aim7 workloads
> > >> on 8 socket 80 cores system, he saw improvements of
> > >> alltests (+14.5%), custom (+17%), disk (+11%), high_systime
> > >> (+5%), shared (+15%) and short (+4%), most of them after around 500
> > >> users when i_mmap was implemented as rwsem.
> > >>
> > >> Feedbacks on the effectiveness of these tweaks on other workloads
> > >> will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Tim, I was really hoping to send all this in one big bundle. I was doing
> > > some further testing (enabling hyperthreading and some Oracle runs),
> > > fortunately everything looks ok and we are getting actual improvements
> > > on large boxes.
> > >
> > > That said, how about I send you my i_mmap rwsem patchset for a v2 of
> > > this patchset?
> > 
> > I'm a bit confused about the state of these patchsets - it looks like
> > I'm only copied into half of the conversations. Should I wait for a v2
> > here, or should I hunt down for Alex's version of things, or... ?
> 
> Except for some internal patch logistics, you haven't been left out on
> any conversations :)
> 
> My original plan was to send out, in one patchset: 
> 
> - rwsem optimizations from Alex (patch 1/2 here, which should be
> actually 4 patches) +
> - rwsem optimistic spinning (patch 2/2 here) +
> - i_mmap_mutex to rwsem conversion (5 more patches)
> 
> Now, I realize that the i_mmap stuff might not be welcomed in a
> rwsem-specific optimizations patchset like this one, but I think it's
> relevant to include everything in a single bundle as it really shows the
> performance boosts and it's what I have been using and measuring the
> original negative rwsem performance when compared to a mutex. 
> 
> If folks don't agree, I can always send it as a separate patchset.

I think the i_mmap_mutex conversion probably should be a separate
patch set.  There are probably a lot of i_mmap specific considerations
that need to be considered.

I'll resend a version two of the patchset that restructure Alex's
changes into 4 patches and incorporate review comments.

Thanks.

Tim


--
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/