From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758480Ab0DAQjF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:39:05 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24405 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758436Ab0DAQi5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:38:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4BB4C566.8060308@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:10:14 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
CC: "lkml, " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
       Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@novell.com>,
       Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
       Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
       Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions
References: <4BB3D90C.3030108@us.ibm.com> <4BB4ABBB.4000909@redhat.com> <4BB4C1C4.2090208@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BB4C1C4.2090208@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 04/01/2010 06:54 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> A lock(); unlock(); loop spends most of its time with the lock held 
>> or contended.  Can you something like this:
>>
>>
>>    lock();
>>    for (i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
>>         asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
>>    unlock();
>>    for (i = 0; i < 10000; ++i)
>>         asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
>
>
>
> Great idea. I'll be doing a more rigorous investigation on this of 
> course, but I thought I'd share the results of just dumping this into 
> the testcase:
>
> # ./futex_lock -i10000000
> futex_lock: Measure FUTEX_LOCK operations per second
>     Arguments: iterations=10000000 threads=256 adaptive=0
> Result: 420 Kiter/s
> lock calls:      9999872
> lock syscalls:   665824 (6.66%)
> unlock calls:    9999872
> unlock syscalls: 861240 (8.61%)
>
> # ./futex_lock -a -i10000000
> futex_lock: Measure FUTEX_LOCK operations per second
>     Arguments: iterations=10000000 threads=256 adaptive=1
> Result: 426 Kiter/s
> lock calls:      9999872
> lock syscalls:   558787 (5.59%)
> unlock calls:    9999872
> unlock syscalls: 603412 (6.03%)
>
> This is the first time I've seen adaptive locking have an advantage! 
> The second set of runs showed a slightly greater advantage. Note that 
> this was still with spinners being limited to one.

Question - do all threads finish at the same time, or wildly different 
times?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function