Any comments about it ? Thanks Ling
2015-11-23 17:41 GMT+08:00 Ling Ma <ling.ma.prog...@gmail.com>: > Hi Longman, > > Attachments include user space application thread.c and kernel patch > spinlock-test.patch based on kernel 4.3.0-rc4 > > we run thread.c with kernel patch, test original and new spinlock > respectively, > perf top -G indicates thread.c cause cache_alloc_refill and > cache_flusharray functions to spend ~25% time on original spinlock, > after introducing new spinlock in two functions, the cost time become ~22%. > > The printed data also tell us the new spinlock improves performance > by about 15%( 93841765576 / 81036259588) on E5-2699V3 > > Appreciate your comments. > > Thanks > Ling > > 2015-11-07 1:38 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hpe.com>: >> >> On 11/05/2015 11:28 PM, Ling Ma wrote: >>> >>> Longman >>> >>> Thanks for your suggestion. >>> We will look for real scenario to test, and could you please introduce >>> some benchmarks on spinlock ? >>> >>> Regards >>> Ling >>> >>> >> >> The kernel has been well optimized for most common workloads that spinlock >> contention is usually not a performance bottleneck. There are still corner >> cases where there is heavy spinlock contention. >> >> I used a spinlock loop microbenchmark like what you are doing as well as >> AIM7 for application level testing. >> >> Cheers, >> Longman >> >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
