On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 09:35 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> The lock acquisition time depends on the holder of the lock,
> and what the CPUs ahead of us in line will do with the lock,
> not on the caller IP of the spinner.
>
That would be true only for general cases.
In network land, we do have spinlock acquisition time depending on the
context.
A garbage collector usually runs for longer time than the regular fast
path.
But even without gc, its pretty often we have consumer/producers that
don't have the same amount of work to perform per lock/unlock sections.
The socket lock per example, might be held for very small sections for
process contexts (lock_sock() / release_sock()), but longer sections
from softirq context. Of course, severe lock contention on a socket
seems unlikely in real workloads.
> Therefore, I am not convinced that hashing on the caller IP
> will add much, if anything, except increasing the chance
> that we end up not backing off when we should...
>
> IMHO it would be good to try keeping this solution as simple
> as we can get away with.
>
unsigned long hash = (unsigned long)lock ^
(unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(1);
seems simple enough to me, but I get your point.
I also recorded the max 'delay' value reached on my machine to check how
good MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY value was :
[ 89.628265] cpu 16 delay 3710
[ 89.631230] cpu 6 delay 2930
[ 89.634120] cpu 15 delay 3186
[ 89.637092] cpu 18 delay 3789
[ 89.640071] cpu 22 delay 4012
[ 89.643080] cpu 11 delay 3389
[ 89.646057] cpu 21 delay 3123
[ 89.649035] cpu 9 delay 3295
[ 89.651931] cpu 3 delay 3063
[ 89.654811] cpu 14 delay 3335
Although it makes no performance difference to use a bigger/smaller one.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
