> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:08:07 -0500 Chris Snook <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don Porter wrote:
> > From: Donald E. Porter <[email protected]>
> >
> > In the bulk page allocation/free routines in mm/page_alloc.c, the zone
> > lock is held across all iterations. For certain parallel workloads, I
> > have found that releasing and reacquiring the lock for each iteration
> > yields better performance, especially at higher CPU counts. For
> > instance, kernel compilation is sped up by 5% on an 8 CPU test
> > machine. In most cases, there is no significant effect on performance
> > (although the effect tends to be slightly positive). This seems quite
> > reasonable for the very small scope of the change.
> >
> > My intuition is that this patch prevents smaller requests from waiting
> > on larger ones. While grabbing and releasing the lock within the loop
> > adds a few instructions, it can lower the latency for a particular
> > thread's allocation which is often on the thread's critical path.
> > Lowering the average latency for allocation can increase system throughput.
> >
> > More detailed information, including data from the tests I ran to
> > validate this change are available at
> > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~porterde/kernel-patch.html .
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your consideration and feedback.
>
> That's an interesting insight. My intuition is that Nick Piggin's
> recently-posted ticket spinlocks patches[1] will reduce the need for this patch,
> though it may be useful to have both. Can you benchmark again with only ticket
> spinlocks, and with ticket spinlocks + this patch? You'll probably want to use
> 2.6.24-rc1 as your baseline, due to the x86 architecture merge.
The patch as-is would hurt low cpu-count workloads, and single-threaded
workloads: it is simply taking that lock a lot more times. This will be
particuarly noticable on things like older P4 machines which have peculiarly
expensive locked operations.
A test to run would be, on ext2:
time (dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=16k count=2048 ; rm foo)
(might need to increase /proc/sys/vm/dirty* to avoid any writeback)
I wonder if we can do something like:
if (lock_is_contended(lock)) {
spin_unlock(lock);
spin_lock(lock); /* To the back of the queue */
}
(in conjunction with the ticket locks) so that we only do the expensive
buslocked operation when we actually have a need to do so.
(The above should be wrapped in some new spinlock interface function which
is probably a no-op on architectures which cannot implement it usefully)
-
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]
