[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170424133622.GB12323@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:36:23 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:04:55PM -0400, Adam Wallis wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 5:35 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The patch of Jan Glauber enables queued spinlocks on arm64. I rebased it on
> > latest kernel sources, and added a couple of fixes to headers to apply it
> > smoothly.
> >
> > Though, locktourture test shows significant performance degradation in the
> > acquisition of rw-lock for read on qemu:
> >
> > Before After
> > spin_lock-torture: 38957034 37076367 -4.83
> > rw_lock-torture W: 5369471 18971957 253.33
> > rw_lock-torture R: 6413179 3668160 -42.80
> >
>
> On our 48 core QDF2400 part, I am seeing huge improvements with these patches on
> the torture tests. The improvements go up even further when I apply Jason Low's
> MCS Spinlock patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/20/725
Does the QDF2400 implement the large system extensions? If so, how do the
queued lock implementations compare to the LSE-based ticket locks?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists