[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5227892B.7030906@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:25:31 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On 09/04/2013 11:14 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Waiman Long<waiman.long@...com> wrote:
>> The latest tty patches did work. The tty related spinlock contention is now
>> completely gone. The short workload can now reach over 8M JPM which is the
>> highest I have ever seen.
> Good. And this was with the 80-core machine, so there aren't any
> scalability issues hiding?
>
> Linus
Yes, the perf profile was taking from an 80-core machine. There isn't
any scalability issue hiding for the short workload on an 80-core machine.
However, I am certain that more may pop up when running in an even
larger machine like the prototype 240-core machine that our team has
been testing on.
-Longman
--
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