Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Date: 2020-01-21 15:46:01
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Date: 2020-01-21 15:46:01
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On 1/21/20 8:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 02:40:41PM -0500, Alex Kogan wrote:quoted
+/* + * Controls the threshold for the number of intra-node lock hand-offs before + * the NUMA-aware variant of spinlock is forced to be passed to a thread on + * another NUMA node. By default, the chosen value provides reasonable + * long-term fairness without sacrificing performance compared to a lock + * that does not have any fairness guarantees. The default setting can + * be changed with the "numa_spinlock_threshold" boot option. + */ +int intra_node_handoff_threshold __ro_after_init = 1 << 16;There is a distinct lack of quantitative data to back up that 'reasonable' claim there. Where is the table of inter-node latencies observed for the various values tested, and on what criteria is this number deemed reasonable? To me, 64k lock hold times seems like a giant number, entirely outside of reasonable.
I actually had similar question before, but having the capability of changing the default with boot time parameter alleviate some of my concern. I will certainly like to see actual data on how different values will affect the performance of the code. Cheers, Longman _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel