lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> For single-thread performance (no contention), a 256K lock/unlock
> loop was run on a 2.4Ghz Westmere x86-64 CPU. The following table
> shows the average time (in ns) for a single lock/unlock sequence
> (including the looping and timing overhead):
>
> Lock Type Time (ns)
> --------- ---------
> Ticket spinlock 14.1
> Queue spinlock (Normal) 8.8*

What CONFIG_NR_CPUS ?

Because for CONFIG_NR_CPUS < 128 (or 256 if you got !PARAVIRT), the fast
path code should be:

ticket:

mov $0x100,eax
lock xadd %ax,(%rbx)
cmp %al,%ah
jne ...

although my GCC is being silly and writes:

mov $0x100,eax
lock xadd %ax,(%rbx)
movzbl %ah,%edx
cmp %al,%dl
jne ...

Which seems rather like a waste of a perfectly good cycle.

With a bigger NR_CPUS you do indeed need more ops:

mov $0x10000,%edx
lock xadd %edx,(%rbx)
mov %edx,%ecx
shr $0x10,%ecx
cmp %dx,%cx
jne ...


Whereas for the straight cmpxchg() you'd get something relatively simple
like:

mov %edx,%eax
lock cmpxchg %ecx,(%rbx)
cmp %edx,%eax
jne ...



Anyway, as soon as you get some (light) contention you're going to tank
because you have to pull in extra cachelines, which is sad.


I suppose we could from the ticket code more and optimize the
uncontended path, but that'll make the contended path more expensive
again, although probably not as bad as hitting a new cacheline.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-31 16:41    [W:0.781 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site