[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1370974231.9844.212.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:10:31 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
赖江山 <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, niv@...ibm.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:53 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I got some pretty bad aim7
> performance numbers with this patch on an 8-socket (80 core) 256 Gb
> memory DL980 box against a vanilla 3.10-rc4 kernel:
This doesn't surprise me as the spin lock now contains a function call
on any contention. Not to mention the added i$ pressure on the embedded
spinlock code having to setup a function call.
Even if the queues are not used, it adds a slight overhead to all
spinlocks, due to the code size increase as well as a function call on
all contention, which will also have an impact on i$ and branch
prediction.
>
> * shared workload:
> 10-100 users is in the noise area.
> 100-2000 users: -13% throughput.
>
> * high_systime workload:
> 10-700 users is in the noise area.
> 700-2000 users: -55% throughput.
>
> * disk:
> 10-100 users -57% throughput.
> 100-1000 users: -25% throughput
> 1000-2000 users: +8% throughput (this patch only benefits when we have a
Perhaps this actually started using the queues?
> lot of concurrency).
>
> * custom:
> 10-100 users: -33% throughput.
> 100-2000 users: -46% throughput.
>
> * alltests:
> 10-1000 users is in the noise area.
> 1000-2000 users: -10% throughput.
>
> One notable exception is the short workload where we actually see
> positive numbers:
> 10-100 users: +40% throughput.
> 100-2000 users: +69% throughput.
Perhaps short work loads have a cold cache, and the impact on cache is
not as drastic?
It would be interesting to see what perf reports on these runs.
-- Steve
--
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