[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150825202710.d960a928.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:27:10 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:17:45 -0700 Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
> When running a database workload on a 16 socket machine, there were
> scalability issues related to itimers.
>
> Commit 1018016c706f addressed the issue with the thread_group_cputimer
> spinlock taking up a significant portion of total run time.
>
> This patch series address the other issue where a lot of time is spent
> trying to acquire the sighand lock. It was found in some cases that
> 200+ threads were simultaneously contending for the same sighand lock,
> reducing throughput by more than 30%.
Does this imply that the patchset increased the throughput of this
workload by 30%?
And is this test case realistic? If not, what are the benefits on a
real-world workload?
--
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