Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW_WAITING

[Waiman Long]

On 06/09/2015 08:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:20:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
> > in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
> > causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
> > patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
> > with new readers.
> This is very narrow, would not the main cost still be the cacheline
> transfers?
>
> Do you have any numbers to back this? I would feel much better about
> this if there's real numbers attached.

I have just sent out a v2 patch with the microbenchmark data for the 2nd 
patch. The extra cmpxchg() because of reader contention should have 
about the same cost of a cacheline miss. The performance gain depends on 
how often this kind of reader contention happens.

Regards,
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/