lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>Subject: locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation
>From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:06:53 +0100
>
>Ding Tianhong reported that under his load the optimistic spinners
>would totally starve a task that ended up on the wait list.
>
>Fix this by ensuring the top waiter also partakes in the optimistic
>spin queue.
>
>There are a few subtle differences between the assumed state of
>regular optimistic spinners and those already on the wait list, which
>result in the @acquired complication of the acquire path.
>
>Most notable are:
>
> - waiters are on the wait list and need to be taken off
> - mutex_optimistic_spin() sets the lock->count to 0 on acquire
> even though there might be more tasks on the wait list.

Right, the main impact I see with these complications are that the
window of when a waiter takes the lock via spinning and then acquires
the wait_lock to remove itself from the list, will allow an unlock
thread to set the lock as available in the fastpath which could in
turn allow a third thread the steal the lock. With high contention,
this window will be come obviously larger as we contend for the
wait_lock.

CPU-0 CPU-1 CPU-3
__mutex_lock_common
mutex_optimistic_spin
(->count now 0)
__mutex_fastpath_unlock
(->count now 1) __mutex_fastpath_lock
(stolen)

spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);

But we've always been bad when it comes to counter and waiters.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-02 23:01    [W:0.154 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site