1
0
mirror of https://github.com/golang/go synced 2024-11-24 18:30:16 -07:00
go/test/locklinear.go

172 lines
3.6 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
// run
// Copyright 2017 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
// Test that locks don't go quadratic due to runtime hash table collisions.
package main
import (
"bytes"
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
"fmt"
"log"
"os"
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
"runtime"
"runtime/pprof"
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
"sync"
"time"
)
const debug = false
// checkLinear asserts that the running time of f(n) is at least linear but sub-quadratic.
// tries is the initial number of iterations.
func checkLinear(typ string, tries int, f func(n int)) {
// Depending on the machine and OS, this test might be too fast
// to measure with accurate enough granularity. On failure,
// make it run longer, hoping that the timing granularity
// is eventually sufficient.
timeF := func(n int) time.Duration {
t1 := time.Now()
f(n)
return time.Since(t1)
}
n := tries
fails := 0
var buf bytes.Buffer
inversions := 0
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
for {
t1 := timeF(n)
t2 := timeF(2 * n)
if debug {
println(n, t1.String(), 2*n, t2.String())
}
fmt.Fprintf(&buf, "%d %v %d %v (%.1fX)\n", n, t1, 2*n, t2, float64(t2)/float64(t1))
// should be 2x (linear); allow up to 3x
if t1*3/2 < t2 && t2 < t1*3 {
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
return
}
if t2 < t1 {
if inversions++; inversions >= 5 {
// The system must be overloaded (some builders). Give up.
return
}
continue // try again; don't increment fails
}
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
// Once the test runs long enough for n ops,
// try to get the right ratio at least once.
// If many in a row all fail, give up.
if fails++; fails >= 5 {
// If 2n ops run in under a second and the ratio
// doesn't work out, make n bigger, trying to reduce
// the effect that a constant amount of overhead has
// on the computed ratio.
if t2 < time.Second*4/10 {
fails = 0
n *= 2
continue
}
panic(fmt.Sprintf("%s: too slow: %d ops: %v; %d ops: %v\n\n%s",
typ, n, t1, 2*n, t2, buf.String()))
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
}
}
}
const offset = 251 // known size of runtime hash table
const profile = false
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
func main() {
if profile {
f, err := os.Create("lock.prof")
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
pprof.StartCPUProfile(f)
defer pprof.StopCPUProfile()
}
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
checkLinear("lockone", 1000, func(n int) {
ch := make(chan int)
locks := make([]sync.RWMutex, offset+1)
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
go func() {
locks[0].Lock()
ch <- 1
}()
}
time.Sleep(1 * time.Millisecond)
go func() {
for j := 0; j < n; j++ {
locks[1].Lock()
locks[offset].Lock()
locks[1].Unlock()
runtime.Gosched()
locks[offset].Unlock()
}
}()
for j := 0; j < n; j++ {
locks[1].Lock()
locks[offset].Lock()
locks[1].Unlock()
runtime.Gosched()
locks[offset].Unlock()
}
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
<-ch
locks[0].Unlock()
}
})
if runtime.GOARCH == "arm" && os.Getenv("GOARM") == "5" {
// lockmany reliably fails on the linux-arm-arm5spacemonkey
// builder. See https://golang.org/issue/24221.
return
}
runtime: use balanced tree for addr lookup in semaphore implementation CL 36792 fixed #17953, a linear scan caused by n goroutines piling into two different locks that hashed to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In that CL, n goroutines contending for 2 unfortunately chosen locks went from O(n²) to O(n). This CL fixes a different linear scan, when n goroutines are contending for n/2 different locks that all hash to the same bucket in the semaphore table. In this CL, n goroutines contending for n/2 unfortunately chosen locks goes from O(n²) to O(n log n). This case is much less likely, but any linear scan eventually hurts, so we might as well fix it while the problem is fresh in our minds. The new test in this CL checks for both linear scans. The effect of this CL on the sync benchmarks is negligible (but it fixes the new test). name old time/op new time/op delta Cond1-48 576ns ±10% 575ns ±13% ~ (p=0.679 n=71+71) Cond2-48 1.59µs ± 8% 1.61µs ± 9% ~ (p=0.107 n=73+69) Cond4-48 4.56µs ± 7% 4.55µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.670 n=74+72) Cond8-48 9.87µs ± 9% 9.90µs ± 7% ~ (p=0.507 n=69+73) Cond16-48 20.4µs ± 7% 20.4µs ±10% ~ (p=0.588 n=69+71) Cond32-48 45.4µs ±10% 45.4µs ±14% ~ (p=0.944 n=73+73) UncontendedSemaphore-48 19.7ns ±12% 19.7ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.589 n=65+63) ContendedSemaphore-48 55.4ns ±26% 54.9ns ±32% ~ (p=0.441 n=75+75) MutexUncontended-48 0.63ns ± 0% 0.63ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) Mutex-48 210ns ± 6% 213ns ±10% +1.30% (p=0.035 n=70+74) MutexSlack-48 210ns ± 7% 211ns ± 9% ~ (p=0.184 n=71+72) MutexWork-48 299ns ± 5% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.678 n=73+75) MutexWorkSlack-48 302ns ± 6% 300ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.149 n=74+72) MutexNoSpin-48 135ns ± 6% 135ns ±10% ~ (p=0.788 n=67+75) MutexSpin-48 693ns ± 5% 689ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.092 n=65+74) Once-48 0.22ns ±25% 0.22ns ±24% ~ (p=0.882 n=74+73) Pool-48 5.88ns ±36% 5.79ns ±24% ~ (p=0.655 n=69+69) PoolOverflow-48 4.79µs ±18% 4.87µs ±20% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) SemaUncontended-48 0.80ns ± 1% 0.82ns ± 8% +2.46% (p=0.000 n=60+74) SemaSyntNonblock-48 103ns ± 4% 102ns ± 5% -1.11% (p=0.003 n=75+75) SemaSyntBlock-48 104ns ± 4% 104ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.231 n=71+75) SemaWorkNonblock-48 128ns ± 4% 129ns ± 6% +1.51% (p=0.000 n=63+75) SemaWorkBlock-48 129ns ± 8% 130ns ± 7% ~ (p=0.072 n=75+74) RWMutexUncontended-48 2.35ns ± 1% 2.35ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.144 n=70+55) RWMutexWrite100-48 139ns ±18% 141ns ±21% ~ (p=0.071 n=75+73) RWMutexWrite10-48 145ns ± 9% 145ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.553 n=75+75) RWMutexWorkWrite100-48 297ns ±13% 297ns ±15% ~ (p=0.519 n=75+74) RWMutexWorkWrite10-48 588ns ± 7% 585ns ± 5% ~ (p=0.173 n=73+70) WaitGroupUncontended-48 0.87ns ± 0% 0.87ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) WaitGroupAddDone-48 63.2ns ± 4% 62.7ns ± 4% -0.82% (p=0.027 n=72+75) WaitGroupAddDoneWork-48 109ns ± 5% 109ns ± 4% ~ (p=0.233 n=75+75) WaitGroupWait-48 0.17ns ± 0% 0.16ns ±16% -8.55% (p=0.000 n=56+75) WaitGroupWaitWork-48 1.78ns ± 1% 2.08ns ± 5% +16.92% (p=0.000 n=74+70) WaitGroupActuallyWait-48 52.0ns ± 3% 50.6ns ± 5% -2.70% (p=0.000 n=71+69) https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20170215.1 Change-Id: Ia29a8bd006c089e401ec4297c3038cca656bcd0a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37103 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
2017-02-12 11:19:02 -07:00
checkLinear("lockmany", 1000, func(n int) {
locks := make([]sync.RWMutex, n*offset+1)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func(i int) {
locks[(i+1)*offset].Lock()
wg.Done()
locks[(i+1)*offset].Lock()
locks[(i+1)*offset].Unlock()
}(i)
}
wg.Wait()
go func() {
for j := 0; j < n; j++ {
locks[1].Lock()
locks[0].Lock()
locks[1].Unlock()
runtime.Gosched()
locks[0].Unlock()
}
}()
for j := 0; j < n; j++ {
locks[1].Lock()
locks[0].Lock()
locks[1].Unlock()
runtime.Gosched()
locks[0].Unlock()
}
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
locks[(i+1)*offset].Unlock()
}
})
}