[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140226214002.GA5660@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:40:02 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, riel@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] locking/core patches
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:58:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would propose merging the following patches...
>
> The first set is mostly from Jason and tweaks the mutex adaptive
> spinning, AIM7 throughput numbers:
>
> PRE: 100 2000.04 21564.90 2721.29 311.99 3.12 0.01 0.00 99
> POST: 100 2000.04 42603.85 5142.80 311.99 3.12 0.00 0.00 99
>
> The second set is the qrwlock, although mostly rewritten by me. I didn't do
> much with it other than boot and build a kernel. But I like them because
> of the much better worst case preformance.
This series passes a short locktorture test when based on top of current
tip/core/locking.
But don't read too much into this... This was in an 8-CPU KVM guest on
x86, and locktorture is still a bit on the lame side. But you have to
start somewhere!
Thanx, Paul
--
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