From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757554AbcASIwb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:52:31 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:33710 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752310AbcASIw2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:52:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOGi=dOz4ogdt303e6PERuGEcrAazVf_r8YigRjtb5kGm5M0eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1451549374-30875-1-git-send-email-ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
	<20160105211834.GR6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160105214227.3a2adcd2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<20160106081643.GS6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160106082106.GU6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160106112450.6c5ad08b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<CAOGi=dPhZUiXAWwvrNXY=cPga9F16g2-N=MVVV-Oo-cFnQQyPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160112135016.247c6ca5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<CAOGi=dOz4ogdt303e6PERuGEcrAazVf_r8YigRjtb5kGm5M0eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:52:26 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOGi=dPaV+H1eg+YeNj0maogMw9MxEqQJsVrpT_mJa9aLKaRUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] alispinlock: acceleration from lock integration on
 multi-core platform
From: Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
        mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ling <ling.ml@alibaba-inc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Is it acceptable for performance improvement or more comments on this patch?

Thanks
Ling

2016-01-14 16:10 GMT+08:00 Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com>:
> Alan,
>
> The attachment  (alispinlock.tar.bz2) in last email includes our
> sample cases for spinlock.
> The attachment (lock_test.tar.bz2) in this email includes the patch on
> kernel 4.3v ,
> which has been applied to actual real kernel locks:
> when we run the user space program (thread.c) on 72cores E5-2699v3,
> it cause many hot kernel spinlocks from __kmalloc and kfree  respectively
> with original spinlock cpu cost 25% and  92715428576 cycles after
> lock/unlock 1000000 times
> with ali spinlock cpu cost 15% and  48475891244 cycles after
> lock/unlock 1000000 times.
> So we say in the real world workload the ali spinlock improve
> performance by 1.9x
> (92715428576 cycles/48475891244 cycles)
>
> Thanks
> Ling
>
> the
>
> 2016-01-12 21:50 GMT+08:00 One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:44:15 +0800
>> Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The attachment (alispinlock.tar.bz2) includes original spinlock and
>>> alispinlock ,
>>> we compare them on 70 cores based on kernel 4.3, the alispinlock can
>>> improve performance upto 3x.
>>>
>>> the link: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1035940.html
>>> indicates when we introduce the idea for real application(user space
>>> application  caused the bottle neck from  kernel spinlock )
>>> the spinlock performance is improved by 1.9x (perf top -d1 also tell
>>> us the spinlock cost time is reduced from 25% to 15%).
>>>
>>> Appreciate your comments
>>
>> So this has not been applied to actual real kernel locks (ie converted
>> some of the hot kernel locks to it) and then benchmarked with a real
>> world workload. This is just for the theoretical locking overhead ?
>>
>> Alan