[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53B2974A.6010809@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:41:06 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
waiman.long@...com, riel@...hat.com, davej@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, jeremy@...p.org,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock
>>
>> For baremetal we continue to have 'fully fair ticketlock' with this patch
>> series.
>>
>
> But but but, we're looking at removing ticket locks. So why do we want
> to invest in them now?
>
I have nothing against qspinlock. I am happy to test it/add any bit to
it if I could.
With this patch we get excellent performance for guest with the
unmodified kernel without affecting host.
My test on guest with batch_size =16,32 showed even better performance
bs=16 bs=32
ebizzy_0.5x 0.14 0.90
ebizzy_1.0x 3.57 7.52
ebizzy_1.5x 58.97 67.65
ebizzy_2.0x 121.55 136.45
--
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