[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOGi=dPoB9bo=PF+y1yqG3ibvnK3PDYCuNns=r6Ho0iPeNQOwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:28:04 +0800
From: Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ma Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load
instruction rollback
Ok, we will put the spinlock test into the perf bench.
Thanks
Ling
2015-10-20 16:48 GMT+08:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>:
>
> * Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> > So it would be nice to create a new user-space spinlock testing facility, via
>> > a new 'perf bench spinlock' feature or so. That way others can test and
>> > validate your results on different hardware as well.
>>
>> Attached the spinlock test module . Queued spinlock will run very slowly in user
>> space because process switch context, it is OK for spinlock-test implementation
>> with kernel module ?
>
> Not sure what you mean by 'because process switch context': if you pin the test
> tasks to individual CPUs and make sure there's nothing else running it should be
> equivalent to kernel-space execution.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
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