Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1415518
| From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock |
| Date | 2016-06-07 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rHb2i-2sU-25@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <rFMfD-58M-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFMfD-58M-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFOKu-6Pk-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rFP3P-703-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rH56x-6VJ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 17:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:33:47PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > - For the above, can you show (or describe) where the qspinlock > > improves things compared to our current locks. > So currently PPC has a fairly straight forward test-and-set spinlock > IIRC. You have this because LPAR/virt muck and lock holder preemption > issues etc.. > qspinlock is 1) a fair lock (like ticket locks) and 2) provides > out-of-word spinning, reducing cacheline pressure. Thanks Peter. I think I understand the theory, but I'd like see it translate into real numbers. > Esp. on multi-socket x86 we saw the out-of-word spinning being a big win > over our ticket locks. > > And fairness, brought to us by the ticket locks a long time ago, > eliminated starvation issues we had, where a spinner local to the holder > would 'always' win from a spinner further away. So under heavy enough > local contention, the spinners on 'remote' CPUs would 'never' get to own > the lock. I think our HW has tweaks to avoid that from happening with the simple locks in the underlying ll/sc implementation. In any case, what I'm asking is actual tests to verify it works as expected for us. > pv-qspinlock tries to preserve the fairness while allowing limited lock > stealing and explicitly managing which vcpus to wake. Right. > > > > While there's > > theory and to some extent practice on x86, it would be nice to > > validate the effects on POWER. > Right; so that will have to be from benchmarks which I cannot help you > with ;-) Precisely :-) This is what I was asking for ;-) Cheers, Ben.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-02 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> - 2016-06-03 03:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com> - 2016-06-03 03:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-03 06:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> - 2016-06-03 06:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-03 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-06 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> - 2016-06-07 00:20 +0200
csiph-web