[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: PATCH futex on fusyn (Was: RE: [RFC/PATCH] FUSYN Realtime & robust mutexes for Linux, v2.3.1)
> From: Ingo Molnar []
> * Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky <> wrote:
> > Performance:
> > Environment Seconds (10 continuous runs averaged)
> > ----------- -------------------
> > plain NPTL and futexes 0.97
> > plain NPTL, futexes use fuqueues 1.15
> > Under RTNPTL, using fulocks 1.48
> hm, nice - only ~18% slowdown for a very locking-intense workload. If
> that could be made somewhat lower (without bad compromises) it would
> kill most of the performance-based objections.

That's what I am working on now. As I cannot find no obvious
bottlenecks, I am playing with some simple, small random optimizations
[mostly centered around the hash table lookup code, vl_find*()].
If that doesn't yield any quick improvements, I'll have to dig
further and think some more.

Volanomark is showing some slowdown too, although smaller. However,
seems on the right track.

> the RTNPTL overhead (+~30%) is to be expected i guess - but it's
> optional so no pain.

Still it is too much--I need to at least cut that in half.

Will let you know as soon as I have some new stuff.

Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.033 / U:1.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site