Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt qspinlocks for SPLPAR | From | Waiman Long <> | Date | Sat, 25 Jul 2020 13:36:29 -0400 |
| |
On 7/25/20 1:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:10:59PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 7/24/20 4:16 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 08:47:59PM +0200, peterz@infradead.org wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:32:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>>>> BTW, do you have any comment on my v2 lock holder cpu info qspinlock patch? >>>>> I will have to update the patch to fix the reported 0-day test problem, but >>>>> I want to collect other feedback before sending out v3. >>>> I want to say I hate it all, it adds instructions to a path we spend an >>>> aweful lot of time optimizing without really getting anything back for >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Will, how do you feel about it? >>> I can see it potentially being useful for debugging, but I hate the >>> limitation to 256 CPUs. Even arm64 is hitting that now. >> After thinking more about that, I think we can use all the remaining bits in >> the 16-bit locked_pending. Reserving 1 bit for locked and 1 bit for pending, >> there are 14 bits left. So as long as NR_CPUS < 16k (requirement for 16-bit >> locked_pending), we can put all possible cpu numbers into the lock. We can >> also just use smp_processor_id() without additional percpu data. > That sounds horrific, wouldn't that destroy the whole point of using a > byte for pending? You are right. I realized that later on and had sent a follow-up mail to correct that. >>> Also, you're talking ~1% gains here. I think our collective time would >>> be better spent off reviewing the CNA series and trying to make it more >>> deterministic. >> I thought you guys are not interested in CNA. I do want to get CNA merged, >> if possible. Let review the current version again and see if there are ways >> we can further improve it. > It's not a lack of interrest. We were struggling with the fairness > issues and the complexity of the thing. I forgot the current state of > matters, but at one point UNLOCK was O(n) in waiters, which is, of > course, 'unfortunate'. > > I'll have to look up whatever notes remain, but the basic idea of > keeping remote nodes on a secondary list is obviously breaking all sorts > of fairness. After that they pile on a bunch of hacks to fix the worst > of them, but it feels exactly like that, a bunch of hacks. > > One of the things I suppose we ought to do is see if some of the ideas > of phase-fair locks can be applied to this. That could be a possible solution to ensure better fairness. > > That coupled with a chronic lack of time for anything :-( > That is always true and I feel this way too:-)
Cheers, Longman
|  |