[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA
On 1/24/20 2:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:33:54PM -0500, Alex Kogan wrote:
>> Let me put this question to you. What do you think the number should be?
> I think it would be very good to keep the inter-node latency below 1ms.
It is hard to guarantee that given that lock hold times can vary quite a
lot depending on the workload. What we can control is just how many
later lock waiters can jump ahead before a given waiter.
> But to realize that we need data on the lock hold times. Specifically
> for the heavily contended locks that make CNA worth it in the first
> place.
> I don't see that data, so I don't see how we can argue about this let
> alone call something reasonable.
In essence, CNA lock is for improving throughput on NUMA machines at the
expense of increasing worst case latency. If low latency is important,
it should be disabled. If CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is on,


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-24 15:44    [W:0.134 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site