Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

[Ingo Molnar]

* Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx> wrote:

> I had run some performance tests using the fserver and new_fserver 
> benchmarks (on ext4 filesystems) of the AIM7 test suite on a 80-core 
> DL980 with HT on. The following kernels were used:
> 
> 1. Modified 3.10.1 kernel with mb_cache_spinlock in fs/mbcache.c
>    replaced by a rwlock
> 2. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + modified __read_lock_failed code as suggested
>    by Ingo
> 3. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + queue read/write lock
> 4. Modified 3.10.1 kernel + queue read/write lock in classic read/write
>    lock behavior
> 
> The last one is with the read lock stealing flag set in the qrwlock
> structure to give priority to readers and behave more like the classic
> read/write lock with less fairness.
> 
> The following table shows the averaged results in the 200-1000
> user ranges:
> 
> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |  Kernel         |    1   |    2   |    3   |   4    |
> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
> | fserver JPM     | 245598 | 274457 | 403348 | 411941 |
> | % change from 1 |   0%   | +11.8% | +64.2% | +67.7% |
> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
> | new-fserver JPM | 231549 | 269807 | 399093 | 399418 |
> | % change from 1 |   0%   | +16.5% | +72.4% | +72.5% |
> +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

So it's not just herding that is a problem.

I'm wondering, how sensitive is this particular benchmark to fairness? 
I.e. do the 200-1000 simulated users each perform the same number of ops, 
so that any smearing of execution time via unfairness gets amplified?

I.e. does steady-state throughput go up by 60%+ too with your changes?

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/