Hi Vikram, On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 04:25:12PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote: > On 2017-07-31 06:13, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote: > >>On 2017-07-28 02:28, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:10:34PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote: > > >>> > >>This does seem to help. Here's some data after 5 runs with and without > >>the > >>patch. > > > >Blimey, that does seem to make a difference. Shame it's so ugly! Would you > >be able to experiment with other values for CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD? I had > >it set to 10000 in the diff I posted, but that might be higher than > >optimal. > >It would be interested to see if it correlates with num_possible_cpus() > >for the highly contended case. > > > >Will > > Sorry for the late response - I should hopefully have some more data with > different thresholds before the week is finished or on Monday.
Did you get anywhere with the threshold heuristic? Will
