From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Chandramouleeswaran,
Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] mutex: Improve mutex performance by doing less atomic-ops & better spinning
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:09:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130416130951.GB20961@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516D3ADE.9060606@hp.com>
* Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 05:12 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>Patches 2 improves the mutex spinning process by reducing contention among the
> >>spinners when competing for the mutex. This is done by using a MCS lock to put
> >>the spinners in a queue so that only the first spinner will try to acquire the
> >>mutex when it is available. This patch showed significant performance
> >>improvement of +30% on the AIM7 fserver and new_fserver workload.
> >Ok, that's really nice - and this approach has no arbitrary limits/tunings in it.
> >
> >Do you have a performance comparison to your first series (patches 1+2+3 IIRC) -
> >how does this new series with MCS locking compare to the best previous result from
> >that old series? Do we now achieve that level of performance?
>
> Compared with the old patch set, the new patches 1+2 have over 30%
> performance gain in high user load (1100-1500) in the fserver and
> new_fserver workloads. The old patches 1+2 or 1+3 only manages
> around 10% gain. In the intermediate range of 200-1000, the 2 sets
> are more comparable in performance gain.
Ok, that's cool!
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-16 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-15 14:37 [PATCH 0/3 v2] mutex: Improve mutex performance by doing less atomic-ops & better spinning Waiman Long
2013-04-15 14:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mutex: Make more scalable by doing less atomic operations Waiman Long
2013-04-15 14:45 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-15 14:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: Queue mutex spinners with MCS lock to reduce cacheline contention Waiman Long
2013-04-15 16:27 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-16 4:24 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-04-16 12:05 ` Waiman Long
2013-04-16 9:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-16 14:26 ` Waiman Long
2013-04-17 7:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-15 14:37 ` [PATCH v2 optional 3/3] mutex: back out architecture specific check for negative mutex count Waiman Long
2013-04-16 10:05 ` Will Deacon
2013-04-16 12:10 ` Waiman Long
2013-04-16 9:12 ` [PATCH 0/3 v2] mutex: Improve mutex performance by doing less atomic-ops & better spinning Ingo Molnar
2013-04-16 11:49 ` Waiman Long
2013-04-16 13:09 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20130416130951.GB20961@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox