From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
tony.luck@intel.com,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:08:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgEhGotFkQwTc5YiuQAc6Y0qiAkRXHsvSepkhkKb6jXpA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHE0tzL8OAqvwpDR4Nn_g70a8qBdE_+-fmhXF-DEx_K6kg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 7:12 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did not want to make such a change without redoing the ThunderX2
> benchmark, or at least something else arm64-y. I may be able to bench it
> tomorrow on whatever arm-y stuff can be found on Amazon's EC2, assuming
> no arm64 people show up with their results.
I don't think ThunderX2 itself is particularly interesting, but sure,
it would be good to have numbers for some modern arm64 cores.
The newer Amazon EC2 cores (Graviton 2/3) sound more relevant (or
Ampere?) The more different architecture numbers we'd have for that
"remove cpu_relax()", the better.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
tony.luck@intel.com, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:08:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgEhGotFkQwTc5YiuQAc6Y0qiAkRXHsvSepkhkKb6jXpA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHE0tzL8OAqvwpDR4Nn_g70a8qBdE_+-fmhXF-DEx_K6kg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 7:12 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did not want to make such a change without redoing the ThunderX2
> benchmark, or at least something else arm64-y. I may be able to bench it
> tomorrow on whatever arm-y stuff can be found on Amazon's EC2, assuming
> no arm64 people show up with their results.
I don't think ThunderX2 itself is particularly interesting, but sure,
it would be good to have numbers for some modern arm64 cores.
The newer Amazon EC2 cores (Graviton 2/3) sound more relevant (or
Ampere?) The more different architecture numbers we'd have for that
"remove cpu_relax()", the better.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
tony.luck@intel.com,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:08:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgEhGotFkQwTc5YiuQAc6Y0qiAkRXHsvSepkhkKb6jXpA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHE0tzL8OAqvwpDR4Nn_g70a8qBdE_+-fmhXF-DEx_K6kg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 7:12 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did not want to make such a change without redoing the ThunderX2
> benchmark, or at least something else arm64-y. I may be able to bench it
> tomorrow on whatever arm-y stuff can be found on Amazon's EC2, assuming
> no arm64 people show up with their results.
I don't think ThunderX2 itself is particularly interesting, but sure,
it would be good to have numbers for some modern arm64 cores.
The newer Amazon EC2 cores (Graviton 2/3) sound more relevant (or
Ampere?) The more different architecture numbers we'd have for that
"remove cpu_relax()", the better.
Linus
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-13 4:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-12 23:36 lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 7:55 ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 7:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 7:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 1:12 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 1:12 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 1:12 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-16 14:08 ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 14:08 ` David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44 ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
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='CAHk-=wgEhGotFkQwTc5YiuQAc6Y0qiAkRXHsvSepkhkKb6jXpA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.