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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1700037 > unrolled thread

Re: [Question]: try to fix contention between expire_timers and try_to_del_timer_sync

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Question]: try to fix contention between expire_timers and  try_to_del_timer_sync Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-07-31 15:20 +0200
    Re: [Question]: try to fix contention between expire_timers and  try_to_del_timer_sync Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-04 01:30 +0200

#1700037 — Re: [Question]: try to fix contention between expire_timers and try_to_del_timer_sync

Hi Vikram,

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> On 2017-07-28 02:28, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:10:34PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>
> >>I think we should have this discussion now - I brought this up earlier
> >>[1]
> >>and I promised a test case that I completely forgot about - but here it
> >>is (attached). Essentially a Big CPU in an acquire-check-release loop
> >>will have an unfair advantage over a little CPU concurrently attempting
> >>to acquire the same lock, in spite of the ticket implementation. If the
> >>Big
> >>CPU needs the little CPU to make forward progress : livelock.
> >>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>
> >>One solution was to use udelay(1) in such loops instead of cpu_relax(),
> >>but
> >>that's not very 'relaxing'. I'm not sure if there's something we could
> >>do
> >>within the ticket spin-lock implementation to deal with this.
> >
> >Does bodging cpu_relax to back-off to wfe after a while help? The event
> >stream will wake it up if nothing else does. Nasty patch below, but I'd be
> >interested to know whether or not it helps.
> >
> >Will
> >
> This does seem to help. Here's some data after 5 runs with and without the
> patch.

Blimey, that does seem to make a difference. Shame it's so ugly! Would you
be able to experiment with other values for CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD? I had
it set to 10000 in the diff I posted, but that might be higher than optimal.
It would be interested to see if it correlates with num_possible_cpus()
for the highly contended case.

Will

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1703511

Hi Will,

On 2017-07-31 06:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Vikram,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
>> On 2017-07-28 02:28, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:10:34PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:

>> >
>> This does seem to help. Here's some data after 5 runs with and without 
>> the
>> patch.
> 
> Blimey, that does seem to make a difference. Shame it's so ugly! Would 
> you
> be able to experiment with other values for CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD? I 
> had
> it set to 10000 in the diff I posted, but that might be higher than 
> optimal.
> It would be interested to see if it correlates with num_possible_cpus()
> for the highly contended case.
> 
> Will

Sorry for the late response - I should hopefully have some more data 
with
different thresholds before the week is finished or on Monday.

Thanks,
Vikram
-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web