[PATCH v15 0/6] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock

[Waiman Long]

On 9/30/21 5:44 AM, Barry Song wrote:
>> We have done some performance evaluation with the locktorture module
>> as well as with several benchmarks from the will-it-scale repo.
>> The following locktorture results are from an Oracle X5-4 server
>> (four Intel Xeon E7-8895 v3 @ 2.60GHz sockets with 18 hyperthreaded
>> cores each). Each number represents an average (over 25 runs) of the
>> total number of ops (x10^7) reported at the end of each run. The
>> standard deviation is also reported in (), and in general is about 3%
>> from the average. The 'stock' kernel is v5.12.0,
> I assume x5-4 server has the crossbar topology and its numa diameter is
> 1hop, and all tests were done on this kind of symmetrical topology. Am
> I right?
>
>      ┌─┐                 ┌─┐
>      │ ├─────────────────┤ │
>      └─┤1               1└┬┘
>        │  1           1   │
>        │    1       1     │
>        │      1   1       │
>        │        1         │
>        │      1   1       │
>        │     1      1     │
>        │   1         1    │
>       ┌┼┐1             1  ├─┐
>       │┼┼─────────────────┤ │
>       └─┘                 └─┘
>
>
> what if the hardware is using the ring topology and other topologies with
> 2-hops or even 3-hops such as:
>
>       ┌─┐                 ┌─┐
>       │ ├─────────────────┤ │
>       └─┤                 └┬┘
>         │                  │
>         │                  │
>         │                  │
>         │                  │
>         │                  │
>         │                  │
>         │                  │
>        ┌┤                  ├─┐
>        │┼┬─────────────────┤ │
>        └─┘                 └─┘
>
>
> or:
>
>
>      ┌───┐       ┌───┐      ┌────┐      ┌─────┐
>      │   │       │   │      │    │      │     │
>      │   │       │   │      │    │      │     │
>      ├───┼───────┼───┼──────┼────┼──────┼─────┤
>      │   │       │   │      │    │      │     │
>      └───┘       └───┘      └────┘      └─────┘
>
> do we need to consider the distances of numa nodes in the secondary
> queue? does it still make sense to treat everyone else equal in
> secondary queue?

The purpose of this patch series is to minimize cacheline transfer from 
one numa node to another. Taking the fine grained detail of the numa 
topology into account will complicate the code without much performance 
benefit from my point of view. Let's keep it simple first. We can always 
improve it later on if one can show real benefit of doing so.

Cheers,
Longman