lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH [RT] 00/14] RFC - adaptive real-time locks
    >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at  4:24 PM, in message <20080221212420.GA20953@elte.hu>,
    Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

    > hm. Why is the ticket spinlock patch included in this patchset? It just
    > skews your performance results unnecessarily. Ticket spinlocks are
    > independent conceptually, they are already upstream in 2.6.25-rc2 and
    > -rt will have them automatically once we rebase to .25.

    Sorry if it was ambiguous. I included them because we found the patch series without them can cause spikes due to the newly introduced pressure on the (raw_spinlock_t)lock->wait_lock. You can run the adaptive-spin patches without them just fine (in fact, in many cases things run faster without them....dbench *thrives* on chaos). But you may also measure a cyclic-test spike if you do so. So I included them to present a "complete package without spikes". I tried to explain that detail in the prologue, but most people probably fell asleep before they got to the end ;)

    >
    > and if we take the ticket spinlock patch out of your series, the the
    > size of the patchset shrinks in half and touches only 200-300 lines of
    > code ;-) Considering the total size of the -rt patchset:
    >
    > 652 files changed, 23830 insertions(+), 4636 deletions(-)
    >
    > we can regard it a routine optimization ;-)

    Its not the size of your LOC, but what you do with it :)

    >
    > regarding the concept: adaptive mutexes have been talked about in the
    > past, but their advantage is not at all clear, that's why we havent done
    > them. It's definitely not an unambigiously win-win concept.
    >
    > So lets get some real marketing-free benchmarking done, and we are not
    > just interested in the workloads where a bit of polling on contended
    > locks helps, but we are also interested in workloads where the polling
    > hurts ... And lets please do the comparisons without the ticket spinlock
    > patch ...

    I'm open to suggestion, and this was just a sample of the testing we have done. We have thrown plenty of workloads at this patch series far beyond the slides I prepared in that URL, and they all seem to indicate a net positive improvement so far. Some of those results I cannot share due to NDA, and some I didnt share simply because I never formally collected the data like I did for these tests. If there is something you would like to see, please let me know and I will arrange for it to be executed if at all possible.

    Regards,
    -Greg



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-21 22:51    [W:0.030 / U:0.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site