Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1251275

Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction rollback

Show all headers | View raw

2015-10-19 17:46 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:27:22AM +0800, ling.ma.program@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Ma Ling <ling.ml@alibaba-inc.com>
>>
>> All load instructions can run speculatively but they have to follow
>> memory order rule in multiple cores as below:
>> _x = _y = 0
>>
>> Processor 0                           Processor 1
>>
>> mov r1, [ _y]  //M1                   mov [ _x], 1  //M3
>> mov r2, [ _x]  //M2                   mov [ _y], 1  //M4
>>
>> If r1 = 1, r2 must be 1
>>
>> In order to guarantee above rule, although Processor 0 execute
>> M1 and M2 instruction out of order, they are kept in ROB,
>> when load buffer for _x in Processor 0 received the update
>> message from Processor 1, Processor 0 need to roll back
>> from M2 instruction, which will flush the whole pipeline,
>> the latency is over the penalty from branch prediction miss.
>>
>> In this patch we use lock cmpxchg instruction to force load
>
> "lock cmpxchg" makes me think you're working on x86.
>
>> instructions to be serialization,
>
> smp_rmb() does that, and that's 'free' on x86. Because x86 doesn't do
> read reordering.
>
>> the destination operand
>> receives a write cycle without regard to the result of
>> the comparison, which can help us to reduce the penalty
>> from load instruction roll back.
>
> And that makes me think I'm not understanding what you're getting at. If
> you need to force memory order, a "fence" (or smp_mb()) would still be
> cheaper than endlessly pulling the line into exclusive state for no
> reason, right?
>
>> Our experiment indicates the performance can be improved by 10%~15%
>> for 2 and 3 threads cases, the conflicts from lock cache line
>> spend them most of the time.
>
> That just doesn't parse, what?
When the thread number is 2 or 3, only lock cache line will generate conflicts,
and cost them the most of the time.

Thanks
Ling
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction rollback ling.ma.program@gmail.com - 2015-10-19 04:30 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-10-19 10:00 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-19 11:40 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-10-19 13:30 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction  rollback Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2015-10-19 19:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 05:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-10-20 10:50 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:30 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-20 11:20 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-19 11:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction  rollback Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2015-10-19 19:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 05:10 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-19 11:50 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 05:10 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 05:30 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-20 11:20 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:40 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction  rollback Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2015-10-19 19:20 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 05:20 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction  rollback Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2015-10-20 21:00 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load  instruction rollback Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:50 +0200

csiph-web