[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1412311972.27162.3.camel@linux-t7sj.site>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:52:52 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Tuan Bui <tuan.d.bui@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...nel.org,
artagnon@...il.com, jolsa@...hat.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Perf Bench: Locking Microbenchmark
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 07:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> If you compare an strace of AIM7 steady state and 'perf bench
> lock' steady state, is it comparable, i.e. do the syscalls and
> other behavioral patterns match up?
With more than 1000 users I'm seeing:
- 33.74% locking-creat [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock ◆
+ mspin_lock ▒
+ __mutex_lock_slowpath ▒
+ mutex_lock ▒
- 7.97% locking-creat [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner ▒
+ mutex_spin_on_owner ▒
+ __mutex_lock_slowpath ▒
+ mutex_lock
Lower users count just shows the syscall entries.
Of course, the aim7 setup was running on a ramdisk, thus avoiding any IO
overhead in the traces.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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