lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] futex: Reduce hash bucket lock contention
On 09/14/2011 08:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:46 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> On 09/14/2011 06:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Use the brand spanking new wake_list to delay the futex wakeups until
>>> after we've released the hash bucket locks. This avoids the newly
>>> woken tasks from immediately getting stuck on the hb lock.
>>>
>>> This is esp. painful on -rt, where the hb lock is preemptible.
>>
>> Nice!
>>
>> Have you run this through the functional and performance tests from
>> futextest? Looks like I should also add a multiwake test to really
>> showcase this.
>
> Not more functional than booting, but a very similar patch used to live
> in 33-rt.. I lost the use-case we had that led to that patch, for -rt it
> made a huge difference because we endlessly scheduled back and forth
> between the waker and the wakee bouncing on the hb lock.
>
>> If you don't have it local I can setup a github repository for futextest
>> until korg is back.... or do the testing myself... right.
>
> Right, I don't think I have futextest, or I might, I'd have to dig
> around a bit.

In case you want to grab a quick copy, I decided I didn't want to have a
github repo lying around confusing people :)

http://www.dvhart.com/darren/linux/futextest.tar.bz2

>
>>> @@ -988,7 +986,7 @@ futex_wake(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned i
>>> if (!(this->bitset & bitset))
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> - wake_futex(this);
>>> + wake_futex(&wake_list, this);
>>
>>
>> I guess this is OK. wake_futex_pi will always be one task I believe, so
>> the list syntax might confuse newcomers... Would it make sense to have a
>> wake_futex_list() call? Thinking outloud...
>
> To what purpose? Even delaying a single wakeup until after we release
> the hb lock is useful. On it matters even on !-rt since the woken task
> can wake on another cpu and then spin on hb-lock.

Duh. You're correct of course.

>
>>> @@ -1437,6 +1441,7 @@ static int futex_requeue(u32 __user *uad
>>> put_futex_key(&key2);
>>> out_put_key1:
>>> put_futex_key(&key1);
>>> + wake_up_list(&wake_list, TASK_NORMAL);
>>> out:
>>> if (pi_state != NULL)
>>> free_pi_state(pi_state);
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I _think_ requeue_pi is in the clear here as it uses
>> requeue_pi_wake_futex, which calls wake_up_state directly. Still, some
>> testing with futextest functional/futex_requeue_pi is in order.
>
> Ah, right, that might want frobbing too..

--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-14 18:03    [W:0.050 / U:40.960 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site