From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: jeremy@goop.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, hpa@zytor.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
gleb@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
riel@redhat.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, oleg@redhat.com,
davej@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp,
chegu_vinod@hp.com, waiman.long@hp.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:41:06 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53B2974A.6010809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140701095521.GO6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
>>
>> For baremetal we continue to have 'fully fair ticketlock' with this patch
>> series.
>>
>
> But but but, we're looking at removing ticket locks. So why do we want
> to invest in them now?
>
I have nothing against qspinlock. I am happy to test it/add any bit to
it if I could.
With this patch we get excellent performance for guest with the
unmodified kernel without affecting host.
My test on guest with batch_size =16,32 showed even better performance
bs=16 bs=32
ebizzy_0.5x 0.14 0.90
ebizzy_1.0x 3.57 7.52
ebizzy_1.5x 58.97 67.65
ebizzy_2.0x 121.55 136.45
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
konrad.wilk@oracle.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, gleb@redhat.com,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
waiman.long@hp.com, riel@redhat.com, davej@redhat.com,
oleg@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, jeremy@goop.org,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
jasowang@redhat.com, fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, mtosatti@redhat.com,
chegu_vinod@hp.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:41:06 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53B2974A.6010809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140701095521.GO6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
>>
>> For baremetal we continue to have 'fully fair ticketlock' with this patch
>> series.
>>
>
> But but but, we're looking at removing ticket locks. So why do we want
> to invest in them now?
>
I have nothing against qspinlock. I am happy to test it/add any bit to
it if I could.
With this patch we get excellent performance for guest with the
unmodified kernel without affecting host.
My test on guest with batch_size =16,32 showed even better performance
bs=16 bs=32
ebizzy_0.5x 0.14 0.90
ebizzy_1.0x 3.57 7.52
ebizzy_1.5x 58.97 67.65
ebizzy_2.0x 121.55 136.45
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-01 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-28 9:17 [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock Raghavendra K T
2014-06-28 9:17 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-06-28 9:17 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 9:44 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:44 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:44 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 11:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 11:11 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2014-07-01 11:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-06-28 9:17 Raghavendra K T
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=53B2974A.6010809@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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.