Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock

[Alex Kogan]

>>> This is particularly relevant
>>> in high contention situations when new threads keep arriving on the same
>>> socket as the lock holder.
>> In this case, the lock will stay on the same NUMA node/socket for
>> 2^numa_spinlock_threshold times, which is the worst case scenario if we
>> consider the long-term fairness. And if we have multiple nodes, it will take
>> up to 2^numa_spinlock_threshold X (nr_nodes - 1) + nr_cpus_per_node
>> lock transitions until any given thread will acquire the lock
>> (assuming 2^numa_spinlock_threshold > nr_cpus_per_node).
>> 
> 
> You're right that the latest version of the patch handles long-term fairness
> deterministically.
> 
> As I understand it, the n-th thread in the main queue is guaranteed to
> acquire the lock after N lock handovers, where N is bounded by
> 
> n - 1 + 2^numa_spinlock_threshold * (nr_nodes - 1)
> 
> I'm not sure what role the variable nr_cpus_per_node plays in your analysis.

Yeah, thatâs a minor point, but let me try to clarify.

The "n-th thread in the main queueâ is (at most) the nr_cpus_per_node-th thread 
for some node k. So when the node k gets the preference, that thread will
get the lock after at most nr_cpus_per_node-1 lock transitions. As we consider
the upper bound, your analysis is also correct; mine is just a bit tighter.

Makes sense?

Regards,
â Alex