Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Re: [PATCH] futex: bugfix for futex-key conflict when futex use hugepage | From | zhang.yi20@zte ... | Date | Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:13:43 +0800 |
| |
Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote on 2013/04/18 22:34:29:
> On 04/18/2013 01:05 AM, zhang.yi20@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > > I have run futextest/performance/futex_wait for testing, > > 5 times before make it long: > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10215 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 9862 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10081 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10060 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10081 Kiter/s > > > > > > And 5 times after make it long: > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 9940 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10204 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 9901 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10152 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10060 Kiter/s > > > > > > Seems OK, is it? > > > > Changes appear to be in the noise, no impact with this load > anyway. > How many CPUs on your test machine? I presume not 256? > > --
There are 16 CPUs, and mode is: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU C5528 @ 2.13GHz
Shall I make the number of threads as the CPUS? I test again with argument '-n 16', the result is similar.
BTW, have you seen the testcase in my other mail? It seems to be rejected by LKML.
| |