From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261375AbUHSG4P (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:56:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261405AbUHSG4P (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:56:15 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:18395 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261375AbUHSG4K (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:56:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:57:25 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton , Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: PATCH futex on fusyn (Was: RE: [RFC/PATCH] FUSYN Realtime & robust mutexes for Linux, v2.3.1) Message-ID: <20040819065725.GA29785@elte.hu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: > Performance: > Environment Seconds (10 continuous runs averaged) > ----------- ------------------- > plain NPTL and futexes 0.97 > plain NPTL, futexes use fuqueues 1.15 > Under RTNPTL, using fulocks 1.48 hm, nice - only ~18% slowdown for a very locking-intense workload. If that could be made somewhat lower (without bad compromises) it would kill most of the performance-based objections. the RTNPTL overhead (+~30%) is to be expected i guess - but it's optional so no pain. Ingo