From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Waiman.Long@hp.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, davidlohr@hp.com, hpa@zytor.com,
aswin@hp.com, scott.norton@hp.com
Subject: [RFC 3/3] mutex: When there is no owner, stop spinning after too many tries
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:33:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1389745990-7069-4-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1389745990-7069-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
When running workloads that have high contention in mutexes on an 8 socket
machine, spinners would often spin for a long time with no lock owner.
One of the potential reasons for this is because a thread can be preempted
after clearing lock->owner but before releasing the lock, or preempted after
acquiring the mutex but before setting lock->owner. In those cases, the
spinner cannot check if owner is not on_cpu because lock->owner is NULL.
A solution that would address the preemption part of this problem would
be to disable preemption between acquiring/releasing the mutex and
setting/clearing the lock->owner. However, that will require adding overhead
to the mutex fastpath.
The solution used in this patch is to limit the # of times thread can spin on
lock->count when !owner.
The threshold used in this patch for each spinner was 128, which appeared to
be a generous value, but any suggestions on another method to determine
the threshold are welcomed.
Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 10 +++++++---
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index b500cc7..9465604 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
* mutex.
*/
#define MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER(mutex) (atomic_read(&(mutex)->count) >= 0)
+#define MUTEX_SPIN_THRESHOLD (128)
void
__mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
@@ -418,7 +419,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
struct task_struct *task = current;
struct mutex_waiter waiter;
unsigned long flags;
- int ret;
+ int ret, nr_spins = 0;
struct mspin_node node;
preempt_disable();
@@ -453,6 +454,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
mspin_lock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
for (;;) {
struct task_struct *owner;
+ nr_spins++;
if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
struct ww_mutex *ww;
@@ -502,9 +504,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
* When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
* owner acquiring the lock and setting the owner field. If
* we're an RT task that will live-lock because we won't let
- * the owner complete.
+ * the owner complete. Additionally, when there is no owner,
+ * stop spinning after too many tries.
*/
- if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task))) {
+ if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task) ||
+ nr_spins > MUTEX_SPIN_THRESHOLD)) {
mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
goto slowpath;
}
--
1.7.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-15 0:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-15 0:33 [RFC 0/3] mutex: Reduce spinning contention when there is no lock owner Jason Low
2014-01-15 0:33 ` [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched() Jason Low
2014-01-15 7:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-15 7:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-15 20:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-01-15 0:33 ` [RFC 2/3] mutex: Modify the way optimistic spinners are queued Jason Low
2014-01-15 15:10 ` Waiman Long
2014-01-15 19:23 ` Jason Low
2014-01-15 0:33 ` Jason Low [this message]
2014-01-15 1:00 ` [RFC 3/3] mutex: When there is no owner, stop spinning after too many tries Andrew Morton
2014-01-15 7:04 ` Jason Low
2014-01-15 1:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-01-15 7:34 ` Jason Low
2014-01-15 15:19 ` Waiman Long
2014-01-16 2:45 ` Jason Low
2014-01-16 3:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-01-16 6:46 ` Jason Low
2014-01-16 12:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-16 20:48 ` Jason Low
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1389745990-7069-4-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com \
--to=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®