Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:15:07 +0200 | From | Juergen Doelle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Align VM locks, new spinlock patch |
| |
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote > Do you have CPU utilisation differences for these cases, as well as > pure IO bandwidth differences? It would be interesting to see just > how much the IO code's internal latency impacts on the final dbench > numbers.
I created vmstat traces for dbench 22
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+ | 2.4.10 | 2.4.10 + spinlock patch | +----+----------+-------+-----------+----------+-------+-----------+ |time|procs | IO | cpu |procs | IO | cpu | + +----------+-------+-----------+----------+-------+-----------+ |[s] | r b w | bo/s | us sy id | r b w | bo/s | us sy id | +----+----------+-------+-----------+----------+-------+-----------+ | 1 | 23 0 0 | 0 | 0 14 85 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 1 47 52 | | 2 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 2 98 0 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 2 99 0 | | 3 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 2 98 0 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 4 97 0 | | 4 | 8 14 2 | 11052 | 12 89 0 | 5 17 1 | 20465 | 11 84 5 | | 5 | 3 19 1 | 1616 | 1 4 94 | 20 2 6 | 1788 | 16 83 0 | | 6 | 1 21 1 | 1760 | 2 4 94 | 22 0 4 | 0 | 18 82 0 | | 7 | 23 0 3 | 2852 | 12 46 42 | 22 0 1 | 0 | 19 80 0 | | 8 | 22 0 3 | 0 | 15 85 0 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 19 82 0 | | 9 | 22 0 2 | 0 | 17 83 0 | 23 0 0 | 0 | 18 82 0 | | 10 | 23 0 1 | 0 | 16 84 0 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 17 82 1 | | 11 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 14 86 0 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 18 83 | | 12 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 16 84 0 | 19 0 0 | 0 | 18 82 0 | | 13 | 22 0 0 | 0 | 19 81 1 | 9 0 0 | 0 | 7 94 | | 14 | 20 0 0 | 0 | 17 84 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 30 70 | | 15 | 17 0 0 | 0 | 15 85 0 |----------+-------+-----------+ | 16 | 13 0 0 | 0 | 4 97 0 | | 17 | 12 0 0 | 0 | 0 100 0 | | 18 | 7 0 0 | 0 | 0 99 0 | | 19 | 0 0 0 | 0 | 0 15 85 | +----+----------+-------+-----------+ *the empty idle columns originally containing 5315553, treat as '0'
The patch o reduces significantly the idle times, the user process wait time is much shorter o reduces the I/O phase to the half of the time, by much higher rates o increases the user and decreases the system CPU utilization
I prior posted lockmeter results on 2.4.5, where this patch reduced for 8 CPUs the average spin hold time by about 47% and the total CPU utilization spent for spinning by 45%. I think it does not influence the device layer directly. It speeds up the time spent in critical phases protected with spin locks, when the number of competitors increases. In case of high competitions caused by many parallel working processors, the buffer cache and pagecache handling gets faster and this increases the number of changed pages per second.
Therefore the mechanism used here can also be used to improve competitive scenarios for other spin locks.
Juergen
______________________________________________________________ Juergen Doelle IBM Linux Technology Center - kernel performance jdoelle@de.ibm.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/
|  |