On 8/24/13 10:47 AM, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
On 24 Aug 2013, at 17:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
We should distinguish "lock contention" from "line contention". When acquiring a rwlock
on multiple CPUs concurrently, the cache lines used to implement the lock are contended, as they must bounce
between caches via the cache coherence protocol, also referred to as "contention". In the if_lagg
code, I assume that the read-only acquire of the rwlock (and perhaps now rmlock) is for data stability rather
than mutual exclusion -- e.g., to allow processing to completion against a stable version of the lagg
configuration. As such, indeed, there should be no lock contention unless a configuration update takes place,
and any line contention is a property of the locking primitive rather than data model.
There are a number of other places in the kernel where migration to an rmlock
makes sense -- however, some care must be taken for four reasons: (1) while
read locks don't experience line contention, write locking becomes observably
e.g., rmlocks might not be suitable for tcbinfo; (2) rmlocks, unlike rwlocks,
more expensive so is not suitable for all rwlock line contention spots --
implement reader priority propagation, so you must reason about; and (3)
historically, rmlocks have not fully implemented WITNESS so you may get less
good debugging output. if_lagg is a nice place to use rmlocks, as
reconfigurations are very rare, and it's really all about long-term data
stability.
Robert, what do you think about a quick swap of the ifnet structures to counter
before 10.x?
Could you be more specific about the proposal you're making?
Robert
The lagg patch referred to in the thread seems to indicate that zero
locking is needed if we just switched to counter(9), that makes me
wonder if we could do better with locking in other places if we switched
to counter(9) while we have the chance.
This is the thread:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/2013-April/067570.html
/
/>/ Perfect solution would be to convert ifnet(9) to counters(9), but this
/>/ requires much more work, and unfortunately ABI change, so temporarily
/>/ patch lagg(4) manually.
/>/
/>/ We store counters in the softc, and once per second push their values
/>/ to legacy ifnet counters./
--
Alfred Perlstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
