[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463AFB8C.2000909@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:23:24 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans -- vm bugfixes
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Is that every fork/exec or just under certain cicumstances?
>> A 5% regression on every fork/exec is not acceptable.
>
>
> Well after patch2, G5 fork is 3% and exec is 1%, I'd say the P4
> numbers will be improved as well with that patch. Then if we have
> specific lock/unlock bitops, I hope it should reduce that further.
OK, with the races and missing barriers fixed from the previous patch,
plus the attached one added (+patch3), numbers are better again (I'm not
sure if I have the ppc barriers correct though).
These ops could also be put to use in bit spinlocks, buffer lock, and
probably a few other places too.
2.6.21 1.49-1.51 164.6-170.8 741.8-760.3
+patch 1.71-1.73 175.2-180.8 780.5-794.2
+patch2 1.61-1.63 169.8-175.0 748.6-757.0
+patch3 1.54-1.57 165.6-170.9 748.5-757.5
So fault performance goes to under 5%, fork is in the noise, exec is
still up 1%, but maybe that's noise or cache effects again.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
View attachment "lock-bitops.patch" of type "text/plain" (10992 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists