From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>Harvey Harrison <har>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51FB20D0.5070306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51FACE78.9070901@hp.com>
On 08/02/2013 02:39 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 04:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 08/01/2013 08:07 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
[..]
>>
>> Though I could see some gains in overcommit, but it hurted undercommit
>> in some workloads :(.
>
> The gcc 4.4.7 compiler that I used in my test machine has the tendency
> of allocating stack space for variables instead of using registers when
> a loop is present. So I try to avoid having loop in the fast path. Also
> the count itself is rather arbitrary. For the first pass, I would like
> to make thing simple. We can always enhance it once it is accepted and
> merged.
Yes. agree.
>>
>> I have not yet tested on bigger machine. I hope that bigger machine will
>> see significant undercommit improvements.
>>
>
> Thank for running the test. I am a bit confused about the terminology.
> What exactly do undercommit and overcommit mean?
>
Undercommit means I meant total #vcpu < #pcpus in virtual env. so
overcommit should not be an issue in baremetal.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51FB20D0.5070306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20130802030032.8fhKqEteu0MImYH0k0CykxUsrONDi9431uz-C8m8NT4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51FACE78.9070901@hp.com>
On 08/02/2013 02:39 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 04:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 08/01/2013 08:07 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
[..]
>>
>> Though I could see some gains in overcommit, but it hurted undercommit
>> in some workloads :(.
>
> The gcc 4.4.7 compiler that I used in my test machine has the tendency
> of allocating stack space for variables instead of using registers when
> a loop is present. So I try to avoid having loop in the fast path. Also
> the count itself is rather arbitrary. For the first pass, I would like
> to make thing simple. We can always enhance it once it is accepted and
> merged.
Yes. agree.
>>
>> I have not yet tested on bigger machine. I hope that bigger machine will
>> see significant undercommit improvements.
>>
>
> Thank for running the test. I am a bit confused about the terminology.
> What exactly do undercommit and overcommit mean?
>
Undercommit means I meant total #vcpu < #pcpus in virtual env. so
overcommit should not be an issue in baremetal.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51FB20D0.5070306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51FACE78.9070901@hp.com>
On 08/02/2013 02:39 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 04:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 08/01/2013 08:07 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
[..]
>>
>> Though I could see some gains in overcommit, but it hurted undercommit
>> in some workloads :(.
>
> The gcc 4.4.7 compiler that I used in my test machine has the tendency
> of allocating stack space for variables instead of using registers when
> a loop is present. So I try to avoid having loop in the fast path. Also
> the count itself is rather arbitrary. For the first pass, I would like
> to make thing simple. We can always enhance it once it is accepted and
> merged.
Yes. agree.
>>
>> I have not yet tested on bigger machine. I hope that bigger machine will
>> see significant undercommit improvements.
>>
>
> Thank for running the test. I am a bit confused about the terminology.
> What exactly do undercommit and overcommit mean?
>
Undercommit means I meant total #vcpu < #pcpus in virtual env. so
overcommit should not be an issue in baremetal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-02 2:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1375324631-32868-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
2013-08-01 2:37 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation Waiman Long
2013-08-01 2:37 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-01 2:37 ` Waiman Long
[not found] ` <20130801094029.GK3008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
2013-08-01 10:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 10:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 10:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <51FAA1C3.2050507@hp.com>
2013-08-01 18:16 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 18:16 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 18:16 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 20:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 20:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 20:36 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:36 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:36 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:23 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:23 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:23 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 20:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 20:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-01 20:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-02 2:54 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-02 2:54 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-02 2:54 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 21:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-01 21:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-01 21:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-02 3:00 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2013-08-02 3:00 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-02 3:00 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-08-01 2:37 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] qspinlock x86: Enable x86 to use queue spinlock Waiman Long
2013-08-01 2:37 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-01 2:37 ` Waiman Long
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=51FB20D0.5070306@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akinobu.mita@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=walken@google.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.