From: Dirk Gouders <dirk@gouders.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm_inline for atomic locking insns
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 11:52:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <gh8qpil9d3.fsf@gouders.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z8ix9YQEIdyAopCw@gmail.com> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Wed, 5 Mar 2025 21:20:05 +0100")
Hi Ingo,
my interest comes, because I just started to try to better understand
PCL and am reading the perf manual pages. Perhaps I should therefore
keep my RO-bit permanent for some more months, but:
> And if the benchmark is context-switching heavy, you'll want to use
> 'perf stat -a' option to not have PMU context switching costs, and the
I'm sure you know what you are talking about so I don't doubt the above
is correct but perhaps, the manual page should also clarify -a:
-a::
--all-cpus::
system-wide collection from all CPUs (default if no target is specified)
In the last example -a is combined with -C 2 which is even more irritating when
you just started with the manual pages.
But the main reason why I thought it might be OK to once toggle my
RO-bit is that I tried your examples and with the first one I have way
higher numbers than yours and I thought that must be, because you just
own the faster machine (as I would have expected):
> starship:~> perf bench sched pipe
> # Running 'sched/pipe' benchmark:
> # Executed 1000000 pipe operations between two processes
>
> Total time: 6.939 [sec]
>
> 6.939128 usecs/op
> 144110 ops/sec
lena:~> perf bench sched pipe
# Running 'sched/pipe' benchmark:
# Executed 1000000 pipe operations between two processes
Total time: 11.129 [sec]
11.129952 usecs/op
89847 ops/sec
And I expected this to continue throughout the examples.
But -- to keep this short -- with the last example, my numbers are
suddenly significantly lower than yours:
> starship:~> taskset 0x4 perf stat -a -C 2 -e instructions --repeat 5 perf bench sched pipe
> 5.808068 usecs/op
> 5.843716 usecs/op
> 5.826543 usecs/op
> 5.801616 usecs/op
> 5.793129 usecs/op
>
> Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (5 runs):
>
> 32,244,691,275 instructions ( +- 0.21% )
>
> 5.81624 +- 0.00912 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.16% )
lena:~> taskset 0x4 perf stat -a -C 2 -e instructions --repeat 5 perf bench sched pipe
4.204444 usecs/op
4.169279 usecs/op
4.186812 usecs/op
4.217039 usecs/op
4.208538 usecs/op
Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (5 runs):
14,196,762,588 instructions ( +- 0.04% )
4.20203 +- 0.00854 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.20% )
Of course, I don't want to waste anyones time if this is a so obvious
thing that only newbies don't understand. So, feel free to just ignore this.
Regards
Dirk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-06 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-28 12:35 [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm_inline for atomic locking insns Uros Bizjak
2025-02-28 13:13 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-02-28 16:48 ` Dave Hansen
2025-02-28 22:31 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-02-28 22:58 ` Dave Hansen
2025-03-01 9:05 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-01 12:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-03-05 8:54 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-05 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-03-05 19:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-03-05 19:47 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-05 22:18 ` David Laight
2025-03-05 20:14 ` David Laight
2025-03-06 10:45 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-06 13:07 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-06 22:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-08 7:22 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-08 19:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-03-05 19:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-05 20:13 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-05 20:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-06 9:38 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-05 20:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-06 10:52 ` Dirk Gouders [this message]
2025-03-06 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-05 20:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-03-05 21:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-03-06 9:01 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-06 9:43 ` kernel: Current status of CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y (was: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm_inline for atomic locking insns) Ingo Molnar
2025-03-06 10:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-03-06 20:37 ` David Laight
2025-03-03 13:12 ` [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm_inline for atomic locking insns David Laight
2025-03-02 20:56 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-03 12:23 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-08 19:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-03-09 7:50 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-09 9:46 ` David Laight
2025-03-09 9:57 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-06 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-06 10:26 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-03-06 10:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-06 10:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-06 13:56 ` Uros Bizjak
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=gh8qpil9d3.fsf@gouders.net \
--to=dirk@gouders.net \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.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