[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path
On 09/27/2013 03:32 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/27/2013 03:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> With the 3.12-rc2 kernel, there is sizable spinlock contention on
>> the rwsem wakeup code path when running AIM7's high_systime workload
>> on a 8-socket 80-core DL980 (HT off) as reported by perf:
>> 7.64% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> |--41.77%-- rwsem_wake
>> 1.61% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irq
>> |--92.37%-- rwsem_down_write_failed
>> That was 4.7% of recorded CPU cycles.
>> On a large NUMA machine, it is entirely possible that a fairly large
>> number of threads are queuing up in the ticket spinlock queue to do
>> the wakeup operation. In fact, only one will be needed. This patch
>> tries to reduce spinlock contention by doing just that.
>> A new wakeup field is added to the rwsem structure. This field is
>> set on entry to rwsem_wake() and __rwsem_do_wake() to mark that a
>> thread is pending to do the wakeup call. It is cleared on exit from
>> those functions.
>> By checking if the wakeup flag is set, a thread can exit rwsem_wake()
>> immediately if another thread is pending to do the wakeup instead of
>> waiting to get the spinlock and find out that nothing need to be done.
> This will leave readers stranded if a former writer is in __rwsem_do_wake
> to wake up the readers and another writer steals the lock, but before
> the former writer exits without having woken up the readers, the locking
> stealing writer drops the lock and sees the wakeup flag is set, so
> doesn't bother to wake the readers.
> Regards,
> Peter Hurley

Yes, you are right. That can be a problem. Thank for pointing this out.
The workloads that I used doesn't seem to exercise the readers. I will
modify the patch to add code handle this failure case by resetting the
wakeup flag, pushing it out and then retrying one more time to get the
read lock. I think that should address the problem.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-28 03:01    [W:0.133 / U:12.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site