From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3rGNCw1PdczDqbW for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 20:53:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049461.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u4RAo5EJ048580 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 06:53:29 -0400 Message-Id: <201605271053.u4RAo5EJ048580@mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com> Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com (e28smtp01.in.ibm.com [125.16.236.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 236ayme8gy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 06:53:29 -0400 Received: from localhost by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:23:25 +0530 Received: from d28relay03.in.ibm.com (d28relay03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.60]) by d28dlp02.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6583940065 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:23:21 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay03.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u4RArLU038207592 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:23:21 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u4RArGmN006212 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:23:20 +0530 Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 18:52:58 +0800 From: xinhui MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jeremy@goop.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, akataria@vmware.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc use pv-qpsinlock as the default spinlock implemention References: <1464164289-6124-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2016年05月27日 00:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:18:03PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote: > >> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____ >> |futex hash | 556370 ops | 629634 ops | >> |futex lock-pi | 362 ops | 367 ops | >> >> scheduler test: >> Test how many loops of schedule() can finish within 10 seconds on all cpus. >> >> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____ >> |schedule() loops| 322811921 | 311449290 | >> >> kernel compiling test: >> build a linux kernel image to see how long it took >> >> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____ >> | compiling takes| 22m | 22m | > > > s/spinlcok/spinlock/ > Oh, foolish mistake...sorry > Is 'spinlcok' the current test-and-set lock? > Yes. I will describe it in a clear way in the next patchset. > And what about regular qspinlock, in case of !SHARED_PROCESSOR? > You mean the test results on powerNV? yes, I make a kernel build with !SHARED_PROCESSOR. and do perf tests and scheduler tests on same machine(32 cpus). performance is better than current spinlock _____test________________spinlock________________qspinlock_____ |futex hash | 533060 ops | 541513 ops | |futex lock-pi | 357 ops | 356 ops | _____test________________spinlock________________qspinlock_____ |schedule() loops| 337691713 | 361935207 | NOTE: I have updated the scheduler test tools, and the new performance test results show that both pv-spinlock and qspinlock is better than current spinlock. I will also update the test result in my next patchset. thanks xinhui