[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A459B1.2070601@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:13:37 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 alternatives : fix LOCK_PREFIX race with preemptible
kernel and CPU hotplug
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> I can't argue about the benefit of using VM CPU pinning to manage
> resources because I don't use it myself, but I ran some tests out of
> curiosity to find if uncontended locks were that cheap, and it turns out
> they aren't. Here are the results :
>
> Xeon 2.0GHz
>
> Summary
>
> make -j1 kernel/ 33.94 +/- 0.07 34.91 +/- 0.27 2.8 %
> hackbench 50 2.99 +/- 0.01 3.74 +/- 0.01 25.1 %
>
> 1 CPU, replace smp lock prefixes with DS segment selector prefixes
> 1 CPU, noreplace-smp
For reference, could you also compare replace smp lock with NOPs?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists