Excerpts from Waiman Long's message of July 13, 2020 9:05 am: > On 7/12/20 1:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 02:21:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>> The previous patch enables native qspinlock to store lock holder cpu >>> number into the lock word when the lock is acquired via the slowpath. >>> Since PV qspinlock uses atomic unlock, allowing the fastpath and >>> slowpath to put different values into the lock word will further slow >>> down the performance. This is certainly undesirable. >>> >>> The only way we can do that without too much performance impact is to >>> make fastpath and slowpath put in the same value. Still there is a slight >>> performance overhead in the additional access to a percpu variable in the >>> fastpath as well as the less optimized x86-64 PV qspinlock unlock path. >>> >>> A new config option QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_CPUINFO is now added to enable >>> distros to decide if they want to enable lock holder cpu information in >>> the lock itself for both native and PV qspinlocks across both fastpath >>> and slowpath. If this option is not configureed, only native qspinlocks >>> in the slowpath will put the lock holder cpu information in the lock >>> word. >> And this kills it,.. if it doesn't make unconditional sense, we're not >> going to do this. It's just too ugly. >> > You mean it has to be unconditional, no option config if we want to do > it. Right? > > It can certainly be made unconditional after I figure out how to make > the optimized PV unlock code work. Sorry I've not had a lot of time to get back to this thread and test things -- don't spend loads of effort or complexity on it until we get some more numbers. I did see some worse throughput results (with no attention to fairness) with the PV spin lock, but it was a really quick limited few tests, I need to get something a bit more substantial. I do very much appreciate your help with the powerpc patches, and interest in the PV issues though. I'll try to find more time to help out. Thanks, Nick
