Re: [PATCH 2/7] locking/rwsem: more aggressive use of optimistic spinning

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:44:19AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 12:10 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> >On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 22:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>The rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() function currently allows optimistic
> >>spinning only if the owner field is defined and is running. That is
> >>too conservative as it will cause some tasks to miss the opportunity
> >>of doing spinning in case the owner hasn't been able to set the owner
> >>field in time or the lock has just become available.
> >>
> >>This patch enables more aggressive use of optimistic spinning by
> >>assuming that the lock is spinnable unless proved otherwise.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
> >>---
> >>  kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c |    2 +-
> >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> >>index d058946..dce22b8 100644
> >>--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> >>+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> >>@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> >>  static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct task_struct *owner;
> >>-	bool on_cpu = false;
> >>+	bool on_cpu = true;	/* Assume spinnable unless proved not to be */
> >Hi,
> >
> >So "on_cpu = true" was recently converted to "on_cpu = false" in order
> >to address issues such as a 5x performance regression in the xfs_repair
> >workload that was caused by the original rwsem optimistic spinning code.
> >
> >However, patch 4 in this patchset does address some of the problems with
> >spinning when there are readers. CC'ing Dave Chinner, who did the
> >testing with the xfs_repair workload.
> >
> 
> This patch set enables proper reader spinning and so the problem
> that we see with xfs_repair workload should go away. I should have
> this patch after patch 4 to make it less confusing. BTW, patch 3 can
> significantly reduce spinlock contention in rwsem. So I believe the
> xfs_repair workload should run faster with this patch than both 3.15
> and 3.16.

I see lots of handwaving. I documented the test I ran when I
reported the problem so anyone with a 16p system and an SSD can
reproduce it. I don't have the bandwidth to keep track of the lunacy
of making locks scale these days - that's what you guys are doing.

I gave you a simple, reliable workload that is extremely sensitive
to rwsem perturbations, so you should be adding it to your
regression tests rather than leaving it for others to notice you
screwed up....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/