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=HP wvzs0DQGvXrMvfgaAeLOtApPrZWiOmCSzbA+4EUcuyFI59dRKuCuvscZ3FaYID84 wP/pHFc7KV9CZyIHQiotgpfn8Rv6G++yHgr+MVwEkRshoZl1vHd+tykKIdzfPAp8 WPdZv77nwqrMqoqsxdLilpXZEV6/1ZGo4Lrdmvl5E= 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=eKEeP/Vo GgwaNKMlpxSpXtozB+I=; b=Upja4g3CgBsbH5Z/Zu/kN7BbCwBsnw0BotZACRpi E7zWfRXLk0ZUMnQ0llSH8R+SXh8c4UmKfRJRaIuLcAbjq0Xk3OdxDIso+2A/d/Zi S0oGZnpor5JUoYM8rhUiK2kphmTjlQ6dSkFcIxxSMXlTXj5FDZvhJ5eBlEQ25K2T jG8= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wm0-f42.google.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.175.194 with SMTP id cc2mr23145866wjc.121.1449320874700; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 05:07:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5662C199.7040906@maxrnd.com> References: <564E3017 DOT 90205 AT maxrnd 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> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 14:07:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cygwin multithreading performance From: Kacper Michajlow To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes 2015-12-05 11:51 GMT+01:00 Mark Geisert : > 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 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. -- 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