Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:36:36 +1100 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE |
| |
Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>>>>"Ingo" == Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes: > > > Ingo> this is the latest version of the mutex subsystem > Ingo> patch-queue. It consists of the following patches: > > [snip] > > Ingo> the patches are against Linus' latest tree, and were tested on > Ingo> i386, x86_64 and ia64. [the tests were also done in > Ingo> DEBUG_MUTEX_FULL mode, to make sure the code works > Ingo> fine. MUTEX_FULL support is not included in this patchqueue]. > > Hi, > > I have been working with Ingo on porting this to ehe ia64 and run a > bunch of benchmarks using the DEBUG_MUTEX_FULL settings to see how it > behaves on various sized systems (8, 24 and 60 CPUs). In general I am > seeing speedups of roughly a factor 4 on XFS and 2.4 on TMPFS. > > Below you will find the results. It's basically the same kernel > version with and without the mutex patch running in DEBUG_MUTEX_FULL > mode without debugging enabled. No other config options were changed. > > I won't rule out any pilot errors, but at least it gives an idea about > the change in performance for a specific workload on different sized > boxes. >
It would be nice to first do a run with a fair implementation of mutexes.
The improvements are definitely large enough that you cannot dismiss the unfair implementation... I wonder if you can record a maximum cost per op? That would be more interesting than either average or standard deviation.
Thanks, Nick
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |