为什么每个人都说SpinLock更快？

Question

我在互联网上阅读了很多文档,文章和帖子.几乎每个人和每个地方都认为SpinLock对于短时间运行的代码来说速度更快,但我做了一个测试,在我看来,简单的Monitor.Enter比SpinLock.Enter工作得更快(Test是针对.NET 4.5编译的)

using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Linq;
using System.Globalization;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Threading;
using System.Net.Sockets;
using System.Net;

class Program
{
    static int _loopsCount = 1000000;
    static int _threadsCount = -1;

    static ProcessPriorityClass _processPriority = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime;
    static ThreadPriority _threadPriority = ThreadPriority.Highest;

    static long _testingVar = 0;


    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        _threadsCount = Environment.ProcessorCount;

        Console.WriteLine("Cores/processors count: {0}", Environment.ProcessorCount);

        Process.GetCurrentProcess().PriorityClass = _processPriority;

        TimeSpan tsInterlocked = ExecuteInterlocked();
        TimeSpan tsSpinLock = ExecuteSpinLock();
        TimeSpan tsMonitor = ExecuteMonitor();

        Console.WriteLine("Test with interlocked: {0} ms\r\nTest with SpinLock: {1} ms\r\nTest with Monitor: {2} ms",
            tsInterlocked.TotalMilliseconds,
            tsSpinLock.TotalMilliseconds,
            tsMonitor.TotalMilliseconds);

        Console.ReadLine();
    }

    static TimeSpan ExecuteInterlocked()
    {
        _testingVar = 0;

        ManualResetEvent _startEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
        CountdownEvent _endCountdown = new CountdownEvent(_threadsCount);

        Thread[] threads = new Thread[_threadsCount];

        for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length; i++)
        {
            threads[i] = new Thread(() =>
                {
                    _startEvent.WaitOne();

                    for (int j = 0; j < _loopsCount; j++)
                    {
                        Interlocked.Increment(ref _testingVar);
                    }

                    _endCountdown.Signal();
                });

            threads[i].Priority = _threadPriority;
            threads[i].Start();
        }

        Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

        _startEvent.Set();
        _endCountdown.Wait();

        return sw.Elapsed;
    }

    static SpinLock _spinLock = new SpinLock();

    static TimeSpan ExecuteSpinLock()
    {
        _testingVar = 0;

        ManualResetEvent _startEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
        CountdownEvent _endCountdown = new CountdownEvent(_threadsCount);

        Thread[] threads = new Thread[_threadsCount];

        for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length; i++)
        {
            threads[i] = new Thread(() =>
            {
                _startEvent.WaitOne();

                bool lockTaken;

                for (int j = 0; j < _loopsCount; j++)
                {
                    lockTaken = false;

                    try
                    {
                        _spinLock.Enter(ref lockTaken);

                        _testingVar++;
                    }
                    finally
                    {
                        if (lockTaken)
                        {
                            _spinLock.Exit();
                        }
                    }
                }

                _endCountdown.Signal();
            });

            threads[i].Priority = _threadPriority;
            threads[i].Start();
        }

        Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

        _startEvent.Set();
        _endCountdown.Wait();

        return sw.Elapsed;
    }

    static object _locker = new object();

    static TimeSpan ExecuteMonitor()
    {
        _testingVar = 0;

        ManualResetEvent _startEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
        CountdownEvent _endCountdown = new CountdownEvent(_threadsCount);

        Thread[] threads = new Thread[_threadsCount];

        for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length; i++)
        {
            threads[i] = new Thread(() =>
            {
                _startEvent.WaitOne();

                bool lockTaken;

                for (int j = 0; j < _loopsCount; j++)
                {
                    lockTaken = false;

                    try
                    {
                        Monitor.Enter(_locker, ref lockTaken);

                        _testingVar++;
                    }
                    finally
                    {
                        if (lockTaken)
                        {
                            Monitor.Exit(_locker);
                        }
                    }
                }

                _endCountdown.Signal();
            });

            threads[i].Priority = _threadPriority;
            threads[i].Start();
        }

        Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

        _startEvent.Set();
        _endCountdown.Wait();

        return sw.Elapsed;
    }
}

在具有24个2.5 GHz内核的服务器上,使用x64编译的此应用程序产生以下结果:

Cores/processors count: 24
Test with interlocked: 1373.0829 ms
Test with SpinLock: 10894.6283 ms
Test with Monitor: 1171.1591 ms

Answer 1

您只是没有测试SpinLock可以改进线程的场景.自旋锁定的核心思想是线程上下文切换是非常昂贵的操作,成本在2000到10,000个cpu周期之间.并且如果线程可能通过等待一点(旋转)来获取锁定,那么等待的额外周期可以通过避免线程上下文切换来获得回报.

因此基本要求是锁定保持很短的时间,这在您的情况下是正确的.并且有可能获得锁定的合理几率.这是不是在你的情况属实,锁很大程度上由不低于24个线程争议.所有旋转和燃烧核心都没有机会获得锁定.

在此测试中,Monitor将最有效,因为它将线程排队等待获取锁定.它们被暂停,直到其中一个有机会获得锁,当锁被释放时从等待队列中释放.给予他们一个公平的转机机会,从而最大限度地提高他们在同一时间完成的几率.Interlocked.Increment也不错,但不能提供公平保证.

判断Spinlock是否是正确的方法可能很难判断.并发分析器是一种正确的工具.