From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:50:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464164289-6124-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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/
Is 'spinlcok' the current test-and-set lock?
And what about regular qspinlock, in case of !SHARED_PROCESSOR?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: jeremy@goop.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org,
mingo@redhat.com, paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
akataria@vmware.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc use pv-qpsinlock as the default spinlock implemention
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:50:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464164289-6124-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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/
Is 'spinlcok' the current test-and-set lock?
And what about regular qspinlock, in case of !SHARED_PROCESSOR?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:50:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464164289-6124-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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/
Is 'spinlcok' the current test-and-set lock?
And what about regular qspinlock, in case of !SHARED_PROCESSOR?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-26 16:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-25 8:18 [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc use pv-qpsinlock as the default spinlock implemention Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] qspinlock: powerpc support qspinlock Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] powerpc: pseries/Kconfig: Add qspinlock build config Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] powerpc: lib/locks.c: Add cpu yield/wake helper function Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] pv-qspinlock: powerpc support pv-qspinlock Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] pv-qspinlock: use cmpxchg_release in __pv_queued_spin_unlock Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-26 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-27 10:34 ` xinhui
2016-05-27 10:34 ` xinhui
2016-05-27 10:34 ` xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] powerpc: pseries: Add pv-qspinlock build config/make Pan Xinhui
2016-05-25 8:18 ` Pan Xinhui
2016-05-26 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-05-26 16:50 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc use pv-qpsinlock as the default spinlock implemention Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-27 10:52 ` xinhui
2016-05-27 10:52 ` xinhui
2016-05-27 10:52 ` xinhui
2016-05-26 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-26 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akataria@vmware.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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.