[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC=cRTPWxToLaix7sW8czFachvX=jyWBckioqSnk08qMU_4GSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:55:48 +0800
From: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, jason.low2@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation
Hi, Low,
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
> I've done some testing with this patch with some of the AIM7 workloads
> and found that this reduced throughput by about 10%. The reduction in
> throughput is expected since spinning as a waiter is less efficient.
>
> Another observation I made is that the top waiter spinners would often
> times require needing to reschedule before being able to acquire the
> lock from spinning when there was high contention. A waiter can go into
> the cycle of spin -> reschedule -> spin -> reschedule. So although the
> chance of starvation is reduced, this patch doesn't fully address the
> issue of waiter starvation.
Could you share your workload? I want to reproduce it in 0day/LKP+ environment.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists