[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180716190139.GR2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:01:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
remove it for ordinary release/acquire
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:40:19AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> I guess arguably it's not a very macro benchmark, but we have a
> context_switch benchmark in the tree[1] which we often use to tune
> things, and it degrades badly. It just spins up two threads and has them
> ping-pong using yield.
The one advantage you'd get from putting it in lock() is that you could
do away with smp_mb__after_spinlock().
But yes, I completely forgot about your IO thingy.. those bench results
make me sad :/ a well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists