lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [LKP] [mm] 9bc8039e71: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -64.1% regression
Date
Hi, Waiman
Did you post that patch? Let's see if it helps.

-----Original Message-----
From: LKP [mailto:lkp-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Waiman Long
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:40 AM
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>; vbabka@suse.cz; Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>; mhocko@kernel.org; Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com; lkp@01.org; kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [LKP] [mm] 9bc8039e71: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -64.1% regression

On 11/05/2018 05:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:12 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I didn't spot an obvious mistake in the patch itself, so it looks
>> like some bad interaction between scheduler and the mmap downgrade?
> I'm thinking it's RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER that ends up being confused by
> the downgrade.
>
> It looks like the benchmark used to be basically CPU-bound, at about
> 800% CPU, and now it's somewhere in the 200% CPU region:
>
> will-it-scale.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
>
> 800 +-+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |.+.+.+.+.+.+.+. .+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+..+.+.+.+. .+.+.+.|
> 700 +-+ +. + |
> | |
> 600 +-+ |
> | |
> 500 +-+ |
> | |
> 400 +-+ |
> | |
> 300 +-+ |
> | |
> 200 O-O O O O O O |
> | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 100 +-+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> which sounds like the downgrade really messes with the "spin waiting
> for lock" logic.
>
> I'm thinking it's the "wake up waiter" logic that has some bad
> interaction with spinning, and breaks that whole optimization.
>
> Adding Waiman and Davidlohr to the participants, because they seem to
> be the obvious experts in this area.
>
> Linus

Optimistic spinning on rwsem is done only on writers spinning on a
writer-owned rwsem. If a write-lock is downgraded to a read-lock, all
the spinning waiters will quit. That may explain the drop in cpu
utilization. I do have a old patch that enable a certain amount of
reader spinning which may help the situation. I can rebase that and send
it out for review if people have interest.

Cheers,
Longman


_______________________________________________
LKP mailing list
LKP@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-28 02:32    [W:0.071 / U:96.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site