Re: [RFC -v3 PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function

From: Avi Kivity
Date: Wed Jan 05 2011 - 04:08:43 EST


On 01/05/2011 10:40 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 04:39 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On 01/04/2011 08:14 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > Also, If pthread_cond_signal() call sys_yield_to imlicitly, we can
> > > > avoid almost Nehalem (and other P2P cache arch) lock unfairness
> > > > problem. (probaby creating pthread_condattr_setautoyield_np or similar
> > > > knob is good one)
> > >
> > > Often, the thread calling pthread_cond_signal() wants to continue
> > > executing, not yield.
> >
> > Then, it doesn't work.
> >
> > After calling pthread_cond_signal(), T1 which cond_signal caller and T2
> > which waked start to GIL grab race. But usually T1 is always win because
> > lock variable is in T1's cpu cache. Why kernel and userland have so much
> > different result? One of a reason is glibc doesn't have any ticket lock scheme.
> >
> > If you are interesting GIL mess and issue, please feel free to ask more.
>
> I suggest looking into an explicit round-robin scheme, where each thread
> adds itself to a queue and an unlock wakes up the first waiter.

I'm sure you haven't try your scheme. but I did. It's slow.

Won't anything with a heavily contented global/giant lock be slow?

What's the average lock hold time per thread? 10%? 50%? 90%?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/