Consider using locks with lower storage requirements

[jdahlin]

Consider using locks with lower storage requirements

[jdahlin]

typedef struct {
     int futex;
     const char *description;
} futex_t;

That's 16 bytes on a 64-bit computer (8 for int, 1 for description, 7 for padding), reducing that to 1 byte should probably improve things.

[tiran]

@jdahlin We can't use C++ features to implement locking. We might be able to lift some restrictions and allow C99 instead of C89. Is there an implementation in C99?

[jdahlin]

A proof of concept using C++ would be fine, it's currently unclear what the exact benefits are. If it turns out to be a significant advantage it could be ported over to C, or alternatively convince upstream that C++ is worth it, much like GCC also started to use C++ a few years back.

I haven't looked at CPython in a few years, but if IIRC, compilation with C++ compilers should be supported.

[larryhastings]

ints are 4 bytes on all the 64-bit platforms I know of. I don't understand how you conclude that description is 1 bytes; it's a pointer, which is 8 bytes on 64-bit platforms. So that's twelve bytes.

The description is a debugging tool while we do development, to give us a clue what the lock is used for. You should not assume it'll be around forever in release builds. The production "futex" on Linux (32- or 64-bit) should be 4 bytes, for the "int futex", and we're simply not going to do better than that.

The production "furtex" should be 12 bytes by the time we're done: 4-byte int futex, 4-byte int depth, 4-byte int threadid. I don't think we're going to do better than that. I don't think we're going to get much smaller than that.

I'm closing this because it's not actionable; it seems to be a complaint ("they're too big!") without any suggestion on how to make them smaller. If you have a suggestion on how to make a lock smaller feel free to reopen.

[jdahlin]

Well, WTF from WebKit uses a lock that is only one byte (WTF::Lock). Splitting out the required parts out of WebKit and try to use them instead of an OS futex would be a worthwhile exercise to see if it can improve cache hit/miss ratios.

I might take a look at experimenting with that, if time & energy permits.

[JustAMan]

I think one should first try to see if there are any real cache misses caused by big locks.
Like try profiling with perf or some other tool which allows you to see cache misses.

So far my gut feeling tells me that most likely we are hurt by cache misses caused by incref-decref operations (especially given they're now implemented as atomics, thus CPU must flush its cache to the memory - a really slow thing to do).

[JustAMan]

@larryhastings
I just had an idea how we can try to make furtex smaller - I think we can double-utilize the futex field to store thread id instead of simply 0 or 1, that gives it the minimum size of 8 - much better alignment to cache lines than 12.
Still I think this would have a insignificant impact on the performance...