Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: PATCH futex on fusyn (Was: RE: [RFC/PATCH] FUSYN Realtime & robust mutexes for Linux, v2.3.1) | Date | Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:15:42 -0700 | From | "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <> |
| |
> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@elte.hu] > * Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com> 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 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/
| |