From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] adaptive spinning mutexes
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:06:19 +0100
Message-ID: <20090115180619.GK22472@elte.hu>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901130812590.6528@localhost.localdomain> <1231863710.7141.3.camel@twins> <1231864854.7141.8.camel@twins> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901130846320.6528@localhost.localdomain> <1231867314.7141.16.camel@twins> <1231952436.14825.28.camel@laptop> <20090114183319.GA18630@elte.hu> <20090114184746.GA21334@elte.hu> <20090114192811.GA19691@elte.hu> <20090115174440.GF29283@parisc-linux.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@novell.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1764692AbZAOSGz@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090115174440.GF29283@parisc-linux.org>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>


* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:28:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >                       [v2.6.14]     [v2.6.29]
> > 
> >                       Semaphores  | Mutexes
> >             ----------------------------------------------
> >                                   | no-spin           spin
> >                                   |
> >   [tmpfs]   ops/sec:       50713  |  291038         392865       (+34.9%)
> >   [ext3]    ops/sec:       45214  |  283291         435674       (+53.7%)
> > 
> > A 10x macro-performance improvement on ext3, compared to 2.6.14 :-)
> > 
> > While lots of other details got changed meanwhile, i'm sure most of 
> > the performance win on this particular VFS workload comes from 
> > mutexes.
> 
> I asked a couple of our benchmarking teams to try -v9.  Neither the OLTP 
> benchmark, nor the kernel-perf test suite found any significant 
> performance change.  I suspect mutex contention isn't a significant 
> problem for most workloads.

basically only VFS is mutex-bound really, and few of the 'benchmarks' tend 
to be VFS intense. Maybe things like mail-server benchmarks would do that.

Also, -v9 is like two days old code ;-) Old and crufty. The real 
performance uptick was not even in -v10 but in -v11 (the one we submitted 
in this thread).

	Ingo