lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 10 Jan 2006 16:31:21 -0600
FromJoel Schopp <>
SubjectRe: PowerPC fastpaths for mutex subsystem
> interesting. Could you try two things? Firstly, could you add some 
> minimal delays to the lock/unlock path, of at least 1 usec? E.g.
> "synchro-test.ko load=1 interval=1". [but you could try longer delays
> too, 10 usecs is still realistic.]

Graphs attached. The summary for those who don't like to look at attachments is
that the mutex fastpath (threads 1) that I sent the optimized patch for is
comparable within the margin of error to semaphores. The mutex common path
(threads > 1) gets embarrassed by semaphores. So mutexes common paths are not
yet ready as far as ppc64 is concerned.
>
> secondly, could you try the VFS creat+unlink test via the test-mutex.c
> code below, with something like:
>
> ./test-mutex V 16 10

Queued into my todo list.

>
> thirdly, could you run 'vmstat 1' during the tests, and post those lines
> too? Here i'm curious about two things: the average runqueue length
> (whether we have overscheduling), and CPU utilization and idle time left
> (how efficiently cycles are preserved in contention). [btw., does ppc
> have an idle=poll equivalent mode of idling?]

Also queued in my todo list.

>
> also, there seems to be some fluctuation in the numbers - could you try
> to run a few more to see how stable the numbers are?

For the graphs the line is the average of 5 runs, and the 5 runs are scatter
plotted as well.
[image][image][image]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-10 23:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2010