All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>, <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:33:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57BF1DC0.60308@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160825154331.GI10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 08/25/2016 11:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:13:43PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
>> I tested this patch on an 8 socket system with the high_systime AIM7
>> workload with diskfs. The patch provided big performance improvements in
>> terms of throughput in the highly contended cases.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> |  users      | avg throughput | avg throughput |
>>                | without patch  | with patch     |
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> | 10 - 90     |   13,943 JPM   |   14,432 JPM   |
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> | 100 - 900   |   75,475 JPM   |  102,922 JPM   |
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> | 1000 - 1900 |   77,299 JPM   |  115,271 JPM   |
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Unfortunately, at 2000 users, the modified kernel locked up.
>>
>> # INFO: task reaim:<#>  blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>
>> So something appears to be buggy.
> So with the previously given changes to reaim, I get the below results
> on my 4 socket Haswell with the new version of 1/3 (also below).
>
> I still need to update 3/3..
>
> Note that I think my reaim change wrecked the jobs/min calculation
> somehow, as it keeps increasing. I do think however that the numbers are
> comparable between runs, since they're wrecked the same way.

The performance data for the 2 kernels were roughly the same. This was 
what I had been expecting as there was no change in algorithm in how the 
slowpath was being handled. So I was surprised by Jason's result 
yesterday showing such a big difference.

Cheers,
Longman

  reply	other threads:[~2016-08-25 16:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-23 12:46 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 12:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/mutex: Rework mutex::owner Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 19:55   ` Waiman Long
2016-08-23 20:52     ` Tim Chen
2016-08-23 21:03       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 21:09     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 20:17   ` Waiman Long
2016-08-23 20:31     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24  9:56   ` Will Deacon
2016-08-24 15:34     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 16:52       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 16:54         ` Will Deacon
2016-08-23 12:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/mutex: Allow MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER when DEBUG_MUTEXES Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 12:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 12:56   ` Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]   ` <57BCA869.1050501@hpe.com>
2016-08-23 20:32     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 19:50       ` Waiman Long
2016-08-25  8:11         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 16:17 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2016-08-23 16:35   ` Jason Low
2016-08-23 16:57     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 19:36       ` Waiman Long
2016-08-23 20:41         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 22:34           ` Waiman Long
2016-08-24  1:13     ` Jason Low
2016-08-25 12:32       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-25 15:43       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-25 16:33         ` Waiman Long [this message]
2016-08-25 16:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-27 18:27             ` Ingo Molnar
2016-08-25 19:11         ` huang ying
2016-08-25 19:26           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 18:53   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-23 20:34     ` 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=57BF1DC0.60308@hpe.com \
    --to=waiman.long@hpe.com \
    --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
    --cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hpe.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.