X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=pz
	OMTpnFdc4YLL6achbuYr8VV4DCL0zFLaejZjxn2JEkEJdyApNm9YCAt8QnFol4Qu
	efk9zrMbgpkJgGtF/TE4pYMPjMZQggazVz6/VIsSqWzWcJJ5sA/2PuYICOvQQkH0
	MH3i9H9G81GPX7485fdnPHuazphAoPxggKpT0G4uo=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=v5s7+UJ+
	EylPIIOSwOZkENmu3a8=; b=kl/G+70nbO/uv4SWQI/2FgqpFyAZCqJzXafIOfQl
	CaziKmwSre+EG1NvxM+XHWH6uQyYZDUY1uMDblhhIdSkFfQHkOIWfpySfQ3/UZk5
	nbIDBMTmSmPr/LknaipquGKS9Fu35AB8iHHpVUanREDGFNh6Vuq9z0uUIU82MdfI
	M/g=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	mail-wm0-f43.google.com
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.194.175.194 with SMTP id cc2mr23351672wjc.121.1449323984089; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 05:59:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<CABPLAST5EnifrAQ2xKZmohKhyxQHh=K3x3DeCL+BTdHN8nN98w@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CABPLASTtRK4mNxh0M_AnZgjJQ15kWPx+L=U=VCU3Wwi7jV_57A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <564E3017 DOT 90205 AT maxrnd DOT com> <CABPLASTLrH_udLuu2F-m5P6dkENW1Z4YHEudp4NG0-FGLJgPMg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5650379B DOT 4030405 AT maxrnd DOT com> <20151121105301 DOT GE2755 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5652C402 DOT 7040006 AT maxrnd DOT com> <24780-1448274431-7444 AT sneakemail DOT com> <5653B52B DOT 5000804 AT maxrnd DOT com> <20151126093427 DOT GJ2755 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5656DDEF DOT 9070603 AT maxrnd DOT com> <5662C199 DOT 7040906 AT maxrnd DOT com> <CABPLAST5EnifrAQ2xKZmohKhyxQHh=K3x3DeCL+BTdHN8nN98w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Dec 2015 14:59:44 +0100
Message-ID:	<CABPLASQaFhO8r5q==i9K1VjK=wO5pJUYzbYogZSmwgZigJYWCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Cygwin multithreading performance
From:	Kacper Michajlow <kasper93 AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

2015-12-05 14:07 GMT+01:00 Kacper Michajlow <kasper93 AT gmail DOT com>:
> 2015-12-05 11:51 GMT+01:00 Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>:
>> Mark Geisert wrote:
>>>
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 23 16:54, Mark Geisert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> John Hein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Geisert wrote at 23:45 -0800 on Nov 22, 2015:
>>>>>>   > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>>>   > > On Nov 21 01:21, Mark Geisert wrote:
>>>>>>   > [...] so I wonder if there's
>>>>>>   > >> some unintentional serialization going on somewhere, but I
>>>>>> don't know yet
>>>>>>   > >> how I could verify that theory.
>>>>>>   > >
>>>>>>   > > If I'm allowed to make an educated guess, the big serializer
>>>>>> in Cygwin
>>>>>>   > > are probably the calls to malloc, calloc, realloc, free.  We
>>>>>> desperately
>>>>>>   > > need a new malloc implementation better suited to
>>>>>> multi-threading.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone recently mentioned on this list they were working on porting
>>>>>> jemalloc.  That would be a good choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed; thanks for the reminder.  Somehow I hadn't followed that thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed^2.  Did you look into the locking any further to see if there's
>>>> more than one culprit?  I guess we've a rather long way to a "lock-less
>>>> kernel"...
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> But that is just groundwork to identifying which locks are suffering the
>>> most contention.  To identify them at source level I think I'll also
>>> need to record the caller's RIP when they are being locked.
>>
>>
>> In the OP's very good testcase the most heavily contended locks, by far, are
>> those internal to git's builtin/pack-objects.c.  I plan to show actual stats
>> after some more cleanup, but I did notice something in that git source file
>> that might explain the difference between Cygwin and MinGW when running this
>> testcase...
>>
>> #ifndef NO_PTHREADS
>>
>> static pthread_mutex_t read_mutex;
>> #define read_lock()             pthread_mutex_lock(&read_mutex)
>> #define read_unlock()           pthread_mutex_unlock(&read_mutex)
>>
>> static pthread_mutex_t cache_mutex;
>> #define cache_lock()            pthread_mutex_lock(&cache_mutex)
>> #define cache_unlock()          pthread_mutex_unlock(&cache_mutex)
>>
>> static pthread_mutex_t progress_mutex;
>> #define progress_lock()         pthread_mutex_lock(&progress_mutex)
>> #define progress_unlock()       pthread_mutex_unlock(&progress_mutex)
>>
>> #else
>>
>> #define read_lock()             (void)0
>> #define read_unlock()           (void)0
>> #define cache_lock()            (void)0
>> #define cache_unlock()          (void)0
>> #define progress_lock()         (void)0
>> #define progress_unlock()       (void)0
>>
>> #endif
>>
>> Is it possible the MinGW version of git is compiled with NO_PTHREADS
>> #defined?  If so, it would mean there's no locking being done at all and
>> would explain the faster execution and near 100% CPU utilization when
>> running under MinGW.
>
> Nah, there is no threading enabled when there is no pthreads. How
> would that work? :D See thread-utils.h
>
> #ifndef NO_PTHREADS
> #include <pthread.h>
>
> extern int online_cpus(void);
> extern int init_recursive_mutex(pthread_mutex_t*);
>
> #else
>
> #define online_cpus() 1
>
> #endif
>
>
> Looks like there is indeed a bug in git code when passing "--threads"
> explicitly to "git pack-objects", because they show warning about
> threads being unsupported, but doesn't overwrite delta_search_threads
> value. I will go to git's ML about it. This is completely not related
> to our issue.

Obviously I was wrong. There is
#define ll_find_deltas(l, s, w, d, p)    find_deltas(l, &s, w, d, p)
So 'delta_search_threads' value is never used. Still not related to
cygwin issue tho ;)

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -