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:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=UTKwP5kyIG1ZMF21
	i5PznpztD813ZAzMaAQmzHZXZN5h5Gm1j0PGHpKwptaRcD9/SioRSRtKaCL2MaQD
	zOu3easTPY3z8sNFdF0bjVSiTBqtkW3LnGIHv2ERi0vureHSR/3W/h+WuXXuDhO1
	q0H/LoD2NAGxRTvVC0wR4GpwPbI=
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:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=OEK+/vbYdQRtrZ/s5GyFZf
	uhiWA=; b=wzYdJkEiM5IWWGfpaQ2X+JfMaUVnNKq0qXog7bZTChyCaNfjXn0bKf
	VxZTQtJZ1rCuRXhN21R511XWhtBznwNozhJyTWlBKj/kDLu+SuToS2jTQmvnQuzE
	W1nLWFjGs/LX5MvyfzEkHqX1gCVQsNjweL3loac9LgzzOqC6+MFO8=
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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: m0.truegem.net
Subject: Re: Cygwin multithreading performance
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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>
From: Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>
Message-ID: <5662C199.7040906@maxrnd.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 02:51:05 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5656DDEF.9070603@maxrnd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

..mark


--
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