[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160526165047.GM3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:50:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
mingo@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jeremy@...p.org,
chrisw@...s-sol.org, akataria@...are.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc use pv-qpsinlock as the default spinlock
implemention
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:18:03PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____
> |futex hash | 556370 ops | 629634 ops |
> |futex lock-pi | 362 ops | 367 ops |
>
> scheduler test:
> Test how many loops of schedule() can finish within 10 seconds on all cpus.
>
> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____
> |schedule() loops| 322811921 | 311449290 |
>
> kernel compiling test:
> build a linux kernel image to see how long it took
>
> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____
> | compiling takes| 22m | 22m |
s/spinlcok/spinlock/
Is 'spinlcok' the current test-and-set lock?
And what about regular qspinlock, in case of !SHARED_PROCESSOR?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists