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

[Waiman Long]

On 08/13/2014 01:51 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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.

If you can send me a rwsem workload that I can use for testing purpose, 
it will be highly appreciated.

-Longman
--
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/