Longman, We further optimized the kernel spinlock in ali-spin-lock.patch as attachment based on kernel 4.3.0-rc4.
Run thread.c in user space with kernel patch(ali-spin-lock.patch) on E5-2699v3, compare with original spinlock: The printed data indicates the performance in critical path is improved by 1.91x (92715428576 cycles/ 48475891244 cycles), perf top -d1 also tell us the spinlock cost time is reduced from 25% to 15% All compared data is from the below operation in ali-spin-lock.patch: +#if ORG_QUEUED_SPINLOCK + org_queued_spin_lock((struct qspinlock *)&pa.n->list_lock); + refill_fn(&pa); + org_queued_spin_unlock((struct qspinlock *)&pa.n->list_lock); +#else + ali_spin_lock((struct alispinlock *)&pa.n->list_lock, refill_fn, &pa); +#endif and +#if ORG_QUEUED_SPINLOCK + org_queued_spin_lock((struct qspinlock *)&pa.n->list_lock); + flusharray_fn(&pa); + org_queued_spin_unlock((struct qspinlock *)&pa.n->list_lock); +#else + ali_spin_lock((struct alispinlock *)&pa.n->list_lock, flusharray_fn, &pa); +#endif We will send the formal patch as a separate synchronization mechanism soon. Appreciate your comments. Thanks Ling 2015-12-01 4:55 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hpe.com>: > On 11/30/2015 01:17 AM, Ling Ma wrote: >> >> Any comments, the patch is acceptable ? >> >> Thanks >> Ling >> >> > Ling, > > The core idea of your current patch hasn't changed from your previous > patch. > > My comment is that you should not attempt to sell it as a replacement > of the current spinlock mechanism. I just don't see that will happen > given the change in API semantics. Also, I think there are probably > cases that your patch cannot be applied. So treat it as a separate > synchronization mechanism that can be useful in some scenarios. > > Cheers, > Longman >
lock_test.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
