[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130630220004.GA23124@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:00:04 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use asm-goto to implement mutex fast path on x86-64
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 04:56:30PM -0700, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> > Btw, do we have any perf data showing any improvements from this patch?
>
> I wrote a simple test the measures the time it takes to acquire and
> release an uncontended mutex (i.e., we always take the fast path)
> 100k times. I ran it a few times, the original code averages
> 2.743436ms, and the new code averages 2.101098ms, so it's about 23% improvement.
Microbenchmark results tend to be misleading in such situations. Rather,
it would be much closer to reality if you traced a real workload like a
simple kernel build, for example, with and without your patch.
I.e., something like
perf stat --repeat 5 ./build-kernel.sh
and take a look at what the perfcouters are saying in both cases.
> I also think the code looks cleaner this way.
No doubt.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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