[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1437010465.28475.1.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:34:25 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 07:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:18PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 08:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Michael, at some point you were experimenting a bit with that and tried
> > > to get some perf numbers of the impact that would have, did that
> > > solidify ? Otherwise, I'll have a look when I'm back next week.
> >
> > I was mainly experimenting with replacing the lwsync in lock with an isync.
> >
> > But I think you're talking about making it a full sync in lock.
> >
> > That was about +7% on p8, +25% on p7 and +88% on p6.
>
> Just for completeness, what were you running as benchmark? ;-)
Heh sorry :)
That was my lockcomparison benchmark, based on Anton's original. It just does
100,000,000 lock/unlocks for each type in userspace:
https://github.com/mpe/lockcomparison/blob/master/lock_comparison.c
cheers
--
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