Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lockimplementation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 01:59:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/31/2014 04:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>The below is still small and actually works.
> >OK, so having actually worked through the thing; I realized we can
> >actually do a version without MCS lock and instead use a ticket lock for
> >the waitqueue.
> >
> >This is both smaller (back to 8 bytes for the rwlock_t), and should be
> >faster under moderate contention for not having to touch extra
> >cachelines.
> >
> >Completely untested and with a rather crude generic ticket lock
> >implementation to illustrate the concept:
> >
> 
> Using a ticket lock instead will have the same scalability problem as the
> ticket spinlock as all the waiting threads will spin on the lock cacheline
> causing a lot of cache bouncing traffic.

A much more important point for me is that a fair rwlock has a _much_
better worst case behaviour than the current mess. That's the reason I
was interested in the qrwlock thing. Not because it can run contended on
a 128 CPU system and be faster at being contended.

If you contend a lock with 128 CPUs you need to go fix that code that
causes this abysmal behaviour in the first place.


--
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/