From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752054AbcJKTIx (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:08:53 -0400 Received: from g2t4625.austin.hp.com ([15.73.212.76]:47140 "EHLO g2t4625.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751375AbcJKTIv (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:08:51 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1486 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:08:35 EDT Message-ID: <1476211361.12723.15.camel@j-VirtualBox> Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 0/8] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex From: Jason Low To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: jason.low2@hpe.com, Linus Torvalds , Waiman Long , Ding Tianhong , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , Imre Deak , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Davidlohr Bueso , Tim Chen , Terry Rudd , "Paul E. McKenney" , Chris Wilson , Daniel Vetter Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:42:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org> References: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:52 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > Since you all should not be sending patches during the merge window, I figured > I should to keep you all occupied with something. > > Please review, test and otherwise try to break these here patches. > > I would like to get these patches into -tip (and -next) once the merge window > closes, so please spend these quiet days staring at this stuff. > > Small changes only, mostly the handoff logic as suggested by Waiman last time. I tested these new patches on the 8 socket system with the high_systime workload which stresses mutexes. The average throughput with and without the patches were very similar at lower levels of contention. At high contention, the throughput with the patches were slightly lower, but only by a small amount, which I think is expected due to the additional waiter wait time, ect... ------------------------------------------------- | users | avg throughput | avg throughput | | without patch | with patch | ------------------------------------------------- | 10 - 90 | 13,989 JPM | 13,920 JPM | ------------------------------------------------- | 100 - 900 | 76,362 JPM | 76,298 JPM | ------------------------------------------------- | 1000 - 1900 | 77,146 JPM | 76,061 JPM | ------------------------------------------------- Tested-by: Jason Low