[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDDBDB5.8000800@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:20:37 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: ticket lock rewrite and paravirtualization
On 11/12/2010 02:17 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 02:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> - with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
>>> head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
>>> trying to lock, and we can do a kick. Unfortunately this
>>> generates very high level of redundant kicks, because the
>>> waiting CPU might not have blocked yet (which is the common
>>> case)
>>>
>> How high is "very high" here -- most of the time (so that any mitigation
>> on the slow patch is useless)?
>
> I'll need to remeasure, but I think around 90% of the slowpath entries
> were spurious without this. In other words, when spinlocks do contend,
> most of the time it isn't very serious and the other cpu doesn't spend
> much time spinning.
>
90% of the slowpath entries is one thing, my real question is the
fraction of fastpath entries that get diverted to the slowpath. It
affects where mitigation needs to happen.
-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