Emilio G. Cota <c...@braap.org> writes: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 17:18:10 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> Well this is the first re-spin of the series posted last week. I've >> added a bunch of additional patches to be more aggressive with >> avoiding bouncing locks but to be honest the numbers don't seem to >> make it worth it. > > How many threads are you using? With just a few threads I wouldn't > expect a measurable difference.
My setup is 8 "cores" which pigz expands to use but I know you have beefier machines on hand ;-) > >> I think the first 3 patches are ready to take if the TCG maintainers >> want to: >> >> tcg: Ensure safe tb_jmp_cache lookup out of 'tb_lock' >> tcg: set up tb->page_addr before insertion >> tcg: cpu-exec: remove tb_lock from the hot-path > > I think it would be simpler to use tb_lock_recursive and > tb_lock_reset, as pointed out in v1 of this series. I didn't realise people were suggesting asymmetric lock taking/reseting. It seems ugly IMHO. > > Thanks, > > Emilio -- Alex Bennée
