[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51A38257.2020804@colorfullife.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:57:11 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hhuang@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ipc/sem.c: Bug fixes, regression fixes, v3
Hi Davidlohr,
On 05/26/2013 10:50 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> In lack of getting my swingbench DSS environment back, I ran these
> changes against the semop-multi program on my laptop. For 256 threads,
> with Manfred's patchset the ops/sec suffers around -7.3%.
Could you also check the performance of only patch#1?
I fear that it might be slower than all 4 together.
With regards to semop-multi:
Is this the tool?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136208613626892&q=p3
I think the logic is the wrong:
Locking a semaphore is substraction, unlocking adding.
Thus multiple tasks can run in parallel - and the task switch code is
never triggered.
Could you double check that the number of context switches matches the
output?
I usually use this tool:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125038376609750
--
Manfred
--
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