From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:36:23 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks In-Reply-To: References: <1491860104-4103-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> Message-ID: <20170424133622.GB12323@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:04:55PM -0400, Adam Wallis wrote: > On 4/10/2017 5:35 PM, Yury Norov wrote: > > The patch of Jan Glauber enables queued spinlocks on arm64. I rebased it on > > latest kernel sources, and added a couple of fixes to headers to apply it > > smoothly. > > > > Though, locktourture test shows significant performance degradation in the > > acquisition of rw-lock for read on qemu: > > > > Before After > > spin_lock-torture: 38957034 37076367 -4.83 > > rw_lock-torture W: 5369471 18971957 253.33 > > rw_lock-torture R: 6413179 3668160 -42.80 > > > > On our 48 core QDF2400 part, I am seeing huge improvements with these patches on > the torture tests. The improvements go up even further when I apply Jason Low's > MCS Spinlock patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/20/725 Does the QDF2400 implement the large system extensions? If so, how do the queued lock implementations compare to the LSE-based ticket locks? Will