Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 May 2016 18:52:58 +0800 | From | xinhui <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc use pv-qpsinlock as the default spinlock implemention |
| |
On 2016年05月27日 00:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:18:03PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote: > >> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____ >> |futex hash | 556370 ops | 629634 ops | >> |futex lock-pi | 362 ops | 367 ops | >> >> scheduler test: >> Test how many loops of schedule() can finish within 10 seconds on all cpus. >> >> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____ >> |schedule() loops| 322811921 | 311449290 | >> >> kernel compiling test: >> build a linux kernel image to see how long it took >> >> _____test________________spinlcok______________pv-qspinlcok_____ >> | compiling takes| 22m | 22m | > > > s/spinlcok/spinlock/ > Oh, foolish mistake...sorry
> Is 'spinlcok' the current test-and-set lock? > Yes. I will describe it in a clear way in the next patchset.
> And what about regular qspinlock, in case of !SHARED_PROCESSOR? >
You mean the test results on powerNV?
yes, I make a kernel build with !SHARED_PROCESSOR. and do perf tests and scheduler tests on same machine(32 cpus). performance is better than current spinlock
_____test________________spinlock________________qspinlock_____ |futex hash | 533060 ops | 541513 ops | |futex lock-pi | 357 ops | 356 ops |
_____test________________spinlock________________qspinlock_____ |schedule() loops| 337691713 | 361935207 |
NOTE: I have updated the scheduler test tools, and the new performance test results show that both pv-spinlock and qspinlock is better than current spinlock. I will also update the test result in my next patchset.
thanks xinhui
| |