Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:32 +0530 | From | Raghavendra K T <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation |
| |
On 08/02/2013 02:39 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > On 08/01/2013 04:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> On 08/01/2013 08:07 AM, Waiman Long wrote: [..] >> >> Though I could see some gains in overcommit, but it hurted undercommit >> in some workloads :(. > > The gcc 4.4.7 compiler that I used in my test machine has the tendency > of allocating stack space for variables instead of using registers when > a loop is present. So I try to avoid having loop in the fast path. Also > the count itself is rather arbitrary. For the first pass, I would like > to make thing simple. We can always enhance it once it is accepted and > merged.
Yes. agree.
>> >> I have not yet tested on bigger machine. I hope that bigger machine will >> see significant undercommit improvements. >> > > Thank for running the test. I am a bit confused about the terminology. > What exactly do undercommit and overcommit mean? >
Undercommit means I meant total #vcpu < #pcpus in virtual env. so overcommit should not be an issue in baremetal.
| |