lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] ipc/sem.c: performance improvements, FIFO
On 06/14/2013 09:05 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 32 of 64 cores DL980 without the -rt killing goto again loop removal I
> showed you. Unstable, not wonderful throughput.
Unfortunately the -rt approach is defintively unstable:
> @@ -285,9 +274,29 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_ar
> * but have to wait for the global lock to be released.
> */
> if (unlikely(spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock))) {
> - spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
> - spin_unlock_wait(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> - goto again;
> + spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> + if (sma->complex_count)
> + goto wait_array;
> +
> + /*
> + * Acquiring our sem->lock under the global lock
> + * forces new complex operations to wait for us
> + * to exit our critical section.
> + */
> + spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> + spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);

Assume there is one op (semctl(), whatever) that acquires the global
lock - and a continuous stream of simple ops.
- spin_is_locked() returns true due to the semctl().
- then simple ops will switch to spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock).
- since the spinlock is acquired, the next operation will get true from
spin_is_locked().

It will stay that way around - as long as there is at least one op
waiting for sma->sem_perm.lock.
With enough cpus, it will stay like this forever.

--
Manfred


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-15 07:41    [W:0.183 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site