On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:36:43 -0800 Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >void __lockfunc _spin_lock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
> > > >{
> > > > local_irq_disable();
> > > > ------------------------> rdtsc(t1);
> > > > preempt_disable();
> > > > spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > > > _raw_spin_lock(lock);
> > > > ------------------------> rdtsc(t2);
> > > > if (lock->spin_time < (t2 - t1))
> > > > lock->spin_time = t2 - t1;
> > > >}
> > > >
> > > >On some runs, we found that the zone->lru_lock spun for 33 seconds or more
> > > >while the maximal CS time was 3 seconds or so.
> > >
> > > What is the "CS time"?
> >
> > Critical Section :). This is the maximal time interval I measured from
> > t2 above to the time point we release the spin lock. This is the hold
> > time I guess.
>
> By no means. The theory here is that CPUA is taking and releasing the
> lock at high frequency, but CPUB never manages to get in and take it. In
> which case the maximum-acquisition-time is much larger than the
> maximum-hold-time.
>
> I'd suggest that you use a similar trick to measure the maximum hold time:
> start the timer after we got the lock, stop it just before we release the
> lock (assuming that the additional rdtsc delay doesn't "fix" things, of
> course...)
Well, that is exactly what I described above as CS time. The
instrumentation goes like this:
void __lockfunc _spin_lock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
{
unsigned long long t1,t2;
local_irq_disable();
t1 = get_cycles_sync();
preempt_disable();
spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
_raw_spin_lock(lock);
t2 = get_cycles_sync();
lock->raw_lock.htsc = t2;
if (lock->spin_time < (t2 - t1))
lock->spin_time = t2 - t1;
}
...
void __lockfunc _spin_unlock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
{
unsigned long long t1 ;
spin_release(&lock->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
t1 = get_cycles_sync();
if (lock->cs_time < (t1 - lock->raw_lock.htsc))
lock->cs_time = t1 - lock->raw_lock.htsc;
_raw_spin_unlock(lock);
local_irq_enable();
preempt_enable();
}
Am I missing something? Is this not what you just described? (The
synchronizing rdtsc might not be really required at all locations, but I
doubt if it would contribute a significant fraction to 33s or even
the 3s hold time on a 2.6 GHZ opteron).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
