>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hm. Why is the ticket spinlock patch included in this patchset? It just > skews your performance results unnecessarily. Ticket spinlocks are > independent conceptually, they are already upstream in 2.6.25-rc2 and > -rt will have them automatically once we rebase to .25. Sorry if it was ambiguous. I included them because we found the patch series without them can cause spikes due to the newly introduced pressure on the (raw_spinlock_t)lock->wait_lock. You can run the adaptive-spin patches without them just fine (in fact, in many cases things run faster without them....dbench *thrives* on chaos). But you may also measure a cyclic-test spike if you do so. So I included them to present a "complete package without spikes". I tried to explain that detail in the prologue, but most people probably fell asleep before they got to the end ;) > > and if we take the ticket spinlock patch out of your series, the the > size of the patchset shrinks in half and touches only 200-300 lines of > code ;-) Considering the total size of the -rt patchset: > > 652 files changed, 23830 insertions(+), 4636 deletions(-) > > we can regard it a routine optimization ;-) Its not the size of your LOC, but what you do with it :) > > regarding the concept: adaptive mutexes have been talked about in the > past, but their advantage is not at all clear, that's why we havent done > them. It's definitely not an unambigiously win-win concept. > > So lets get some real marketing-free benchmarking done, and we are not > just interested in the workloads where a bit of polling on contended > locks helps, but we are also interested in workloads where the polling > hurts ... And lets please do the comparisons without the ticket spinlock > patch ... I'm open to suggestion, and this was just a sample of the testing we have done. We have thrown plenty of workloads at this patch series far beyond the slides I prepared in that URL, and they all seem to indicate a net positive improvement so far. Some of those results I cannot share due to NDA, and some I didnt share simply because I never formally collected the data like I did for these tests. If there is something you would like to see, please let me know and I will arrange for it to be executed if at all possible. Regards, -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
