linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:50:15 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 11:45 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 08:20 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > You made it back into the locked version.
> > 
> > Btw, even if you probably had some reason for this, one thing to note is 
> > that I think Chris' performance testing showed that the version using a 
> > lock was inferior to his local btrfs hack, while the unlocked version 
> > actually beat his hack.
> > 
> 
> The spinning hack was faster than everything before v7 (we'll call it
> the Linus-fix), and the v7 code was much faster than my spin.
> 
> This is somewhere in between, with slightly better fairness than v7.
> 
>              spin         v7         v8
> dbench 50    580MB/s      789MB/s    421MB/s
> file creates 152 file/s   162 file/s 195 file/s
> file stat    3.8s total   2.3s total 5.3s total
> 
> (the file stat run is total run time, so lower is better.  The other
> numbers are files or MB per second, so higher is better)
> 
> For the file create run, v8 had much lower system time than v7,
> averaging 1s of sys time per proc instead of 1.6s.

Right, how about the spread in completion time, because that is the only
reason I tried this fairness stuff, because you reported massive
differences there.

--
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/