Commit e2e1680f authored by Davidlohr Bueso's avatar Davidlohr Bueso Committed by Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo

perf bench futex: Avoid worker cacheline bouncing

Sebastian noted that overhead for worker thread ops (throughput)
accounting was producing 'perf' to appear in the profiles, consuming a
non-trivial (i.e. 13%) amount of CPU.

This is due to cacheline bouncing due to the increment of w->ops.

We can easily fix this by just working on a local copy and updating the
actual worker once done running, and ready to show the program summary.
There is no danger of the worker being concurrent, so we can trust that
no stale value is being seen by another thread.

This also gets rid of the unnecessary cache alignment hack; its not
worth it.
Reported-by: default avatarSebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Acked-by: default avatarSebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1477342613-9938-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.netSigned-off-by: default avatarArnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
parent 76e2d261
...@@ -39,15 +39,12 @@ static unsigned int threads_starting; ...@@ -39,15 +39,12 @@ static unsigned int threads_starting;
static struct stats throughput_stats; static struct stats throughput_stats;
static pthread_cond_t thread_parent, thread_worker; static pthread_cond_t thread_parent, thread_worker;
#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES 256
#define __cacheline_aligned __attribute__ ((aligned (SMP_CACHE_BYTES)))
struct worker { struct worker {
int tid; int tid;
u_int32_t *futex; u_int32_t *futex;
pthread_t thread; pthread_t thread;
unsigned long ops; unsigned long ops;
} __cacheline_aligned; };
static const struct option options[] = { static const struct option options[] = {
OPT_UINTEGER('t', "threads", &nthreads, "Specify amount of threads"), OPT_UINTEGER('t', "threads", &nthreads, "Specify amount of threads"),
...@@ -66,8 +63,9 @@ static const char * const bench_futex_hash_usage[] = { ...@@ -66,8 +63,9 @@ static const char * const bench_futex_hash_usage[] = {
static void *workerfn(void *arg) static void *workerfn(void *arg)
{ {
int ret; int ret;
unsigned int i;
struct worker *w = (struct worker *) arg; struct worker *w = (struct worker *) arg;
unsigned int i;
unsigned long ops = w->ops; /* avoid cacheline bouncing */
pthread_mutex_lock(&thread_lock); pthread_mutex_lock(&thread_lock);
threads_starting--; threads_starting--;
...@@ -77,7 +75,7 @@ static void *workerfn(void *arg) ...@@ -77,7 +75,7 @@ static void *workerfn(void *arg)
pthread_mutex_unlock(&thread_lock); pthread_mutex_unlock(&thread_lock);
do { do {
for (i = 0; i < nfutexes; i++, w->ops++) { for (i = 0; i < nfutexes; i++, ops++) {
/* /*
* We want the futex calls to fail in order to stress * We want the futex calls to fail in order to stress
* the hashing of uaddr and not measure other steps, * the hashing of uaddr and not measure other steps,
...@@ -91,6 +89,7 @@ static void *workerfn(void *arg) ...@@ -91,6 +89,7 @@ static void *workerfn(void *arg)
} }
} while (!done); } while (!done);
w->ops = ops;
return NULL; return NULL;
} }
......
...@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ static void toggle_done(int sig __maybe_unused, ...@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ static void toggle_done(int sig __maybe_unused,
static void *workerfn(void *arg) static void *workerfn(void *arg)
{ {
struct worker *w = (struct worker *) arg; struct worker *w = (struct worker *) arg;
unsigned long ops = w->ops;
pthread_mutex_lock(&thread_lock); pthread_mutex_lock(&thread_lock);
threads_starting--; threads_starting--;
...@@ -103,9 +104,10 @@ static void *workerfn(void *arg) ...@@ -103,9 +104,10 @@ static void *workerfn(void *arg)
if (ret && !silent) if (ret && !silent)
warn("thread %d: Could not unlock pi-lock for %p (%d)", warn("thread %d: Could not unlock pi-lock for %p (%d)",
w->tid, w->futex, ret); w->tid, w->futex, ret);
w->ops++; /* account for thread's share of work */ ops++; /* account for thread's share of work */
} while (!done); } while (!done);
w->ops = ops;
return NULL; return NULL;
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment