On Sat, 25 Jun 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
- Only simple ops: patch has no impact (the first 10 semops do not matter)
Agreed.
- sleeping complex ops: patch has no impact, we are always in complex mode
- not sleeping complex ops: depends on the size of the array.
With a 4.000 semaphore array, I see an improvement of factor 20.
There is obviously one case where the patch causes a slowdown:
- complex op, then 11 simple ops, then repeat.
Yeah, you reset the counter to COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER every time we do a
complexmode_enter(), so if you have interleaving of complex and simple
ops you could end up always taking the big lock. This is my main concern
and not an unusual scenario at all.
I wonder if we could be a bit less aggressive if already in complex_mode
and do something like:
if (sma->complex_mode > 0) {
WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, min(complex_mode + 1, COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER));
return;
}
and still be constrained by COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER... of course that has its own
additional overhead, albeit less contention on the big lock :/
Perhaps: set COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER to 1 or 2, then allow to configure it
from user space.
Nah, I don't think it's a good idea to expose such internals to userspace.
Or do not merge the patch and wait until someone come with a profile
that shows complexmode_enter().
Testing/benchmarking this patch is on my todo list mainly because I'm lacking
a decent box to test it on. But I'm not conformable having this one without
any numbers for say at least a rdbms benchmark. I'm very eager to add the
first patch (complex_mode) once the nits are settled, as it fixes a real bug.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
