From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933116AbaAaS2O (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:28:14 -0500 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:6019 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932558AbaAaS2M (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:28:12 -0500 Message-ID: <52EBEB36.9090102@hp.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:28:06 -0500 From: Waiman Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , Andrew Morton , Michel Lespinasse , Andi Kleen , Rik van Riel , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linus Torvalds , Raghavendra K T , George Spelvin , Tim Chen , Daniel J Blueman , Alexander Fyodorov , Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , Scott J Norton , Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation References: <1390933151-1797-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1390933151-1797-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20140130193539.GL5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20140130193539.GL5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/30/2014 02:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> This patch introduces a new queue spinlock implementation that can >> serve as an alternative to the default ticket spinlock. Compared with >> the ticket spinlock, this queue spinlock should be almost as fair as >> the ticket spinlock. It has about the same speed in single-thread and >> it can be much faster in high contention situations. Only in light to >> moderate contention where the average queue depth is around 1-2 will >> this queue spinlock be potentially a bit slower due to the higher >> slowpath overhead. > But light to moderate contention should be the most common case. If your > spinlock is very heavily contended, it should be broken up. > > I would really like more performance numbers for this on single and dual > socket machines and 'normal' workloads (ha! as if those exist), ie. > kbuild is all very important to us :-) Yes, I am planning to get more performance data on low end machines. The v3 patch was sent out to spur discussion on this topic while I am trying to get more data. -Longman