[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b35902c-c9b2-82d0-2d93-daee97c3865e@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:17:19 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/20] perf bench: New microbenchmark for userspace
mutex performance
On 01/02/2017 12:16 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:13:39AM -0500, Waiman Long escreveu:
>> This microbenchmark simulates how the use of different futex types
>> can affect the actual performanace of userspace mutex locks. The
>> usage is:
>>
>> perf bench futex mutex <options>
> Showing the tool output is preferred, trim it if needed or state why
> that is not possible.
I will do so when I update the patchset.
>
>> Three sets of simple mutex lock and unlock functions are implemented
>> using the wait-wake, PI and TP futexes respectively. This
>> microbenchmark then runs the locking rate measurement tests using
>> either one of those mutexes or all of them consecutively.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/bench/Build | 1 +
>> tools/perf/bench/bench.h | 1 +
>> tools/perf/bench/futex-locks.c | 844 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/perf/bench/futex.h | 23 ++
>> tools/perf/builtin-bench.c | 10 +
>> tools/perf/check-headers.sh | 4 +
> You forgot to document it in tools/perf/Documentation/perf-bench.txt
Yes, I forgot about that. I will update the document in the next v5
patchset.
> Also I would suggest you submit this first without supportint TP
> futexes, i.e. supporting just what is in the kernel already, this way I
> could cherry-pick this, which would be useful already for benchmarking
> the existing types of futexes.
>
> Then, after the new futex type is accepted into the kernel, in a
> separate patch you would add support for it in 'perf bench futex mutex'.
I can separate out the TP portion of the changes and put them later in
the patchset.
Thanks for the comments.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists