All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Adam Wallis <awallis@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	jason.low2@hp.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:36:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170424133622.GB12323@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a4f067df-4c22-5c90-d70a-809903c60296@codeaurora.org>

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:04:55PM -0400, Adam Wallis wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 5:35 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The patch of Jan Glauber enables queued spinlocks on arm64. I rebased it on
> > latest kernel sources, and added a couple of fixes to headers to apply it 
> > smoothly.
> > 
> > Though, locktourture test shows significant performance degradation in the
> > acquisition of rw-lock for read on qemu:
> > 
> >                           Before           After
> > spin_lock-torture:      38957034        37076367         -4.83
> > rw_lock-torture W:       5369471        18971957        253.33
> > rw_lock-torture R:       6413179         3668160        -42.80
> > 
> 
> On our 48 core QDF2400 part, I am seeing huge improvements with these patches on
> the torture tests. The improvements go up even further when I apply Jason Low's
> MCS Spinlock patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/20/725

Does the QDF2400 implement the large system extensions? If so, how do the
queued lock implementations compare to the LSE-based ticket locks?

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:36:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170424133622.GB12323@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a4f067df-4c22-5c90-d70a-809903c60296@codeaurora.org>

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:04:55PM -0400, Adam Wallis wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 5:35 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The patch of Jan Glauber enables queued spinlocks on arm64. I rebased it on
> > latest kernel sources, and added a couple of fixes to headers to apply it 
> > smoothly.
> > 
> > Though, locktourture test shows significant performance degradation in the
> > acquisition of rw-lock for read on qemu:
> > 
> >                           Before           After
> > spin_lock-torture:      38957034        37076367         -4.83
> > rw_lock-torture W:       5369471        18971957        253.33
> > rw_lock-torture R:       6413179         3668160        -42.80
> > 
> 
> On our 48 core QDF2400 part, I am seeing huge improvements with these patches on
> the torture tests. The improvements go up even further when I apply Jason Low's
> MCS Spinlock patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/20/725

Does the QDF2400 implement the large system extensions? If so, how do the
queued lock implementations compare to the LSE-based ticket locks?

Will

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-04-24 13:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-10 21:35 [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in qrwlock.c Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35   ` Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic: don't #include <linux/atomic.h> in qspinlock_types.h Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35   ` Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64/locking: qspinlocks and qrwlocks support Yury Norov
2017-04-10 21:35   ` Yury Norov
2017-04-13 18:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-13 18:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 18:23     ` Yury Norov
2017-04-20 18:23       ` Yury Norov
2017-04-20 19:00       ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-20 19:00         ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-20 19:05       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 19:05         ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-26 12:39         ` Yury Norov
2017-04-26 12:39           ` Yury Norov
2017-04-28 15:44           ` Will Deacon
2017-04-28 15:44             ` Will Deacon
2017-04-12 17:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Adam Wallis
2017-04-12 17:04   ` Adam Wallis
2017-04-13 10:33   ` Yury Norov
2017-04-13 10:33     ` Yury Norov
2017-04-28 15:37     ` Will Deacon
2017-04-28 15:37       ` Will Deacon
2017-04-24 13:36   ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-04-24 13:36     ` Will Deacon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170424133622.GB12323@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=awallis@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=jglauber@cavium.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ynorov@caviumnetworks.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.