lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket plist in futex_wake()
From
Date
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 09:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:12:31AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > I am becoming hesitant about this approach. The following are some
> > results, from my quad-core laptop, measuring the latency of nthread
> > wakeups (1 at a time). In addition, failed wait calls never occur -- so
> > we don't end up including the (otherwise minimal) overhead of the list
> > queue+dequeue, only measuring the smp_mb() usage when !empty list never
> > occurs.
> >
> > +---------+--------------------+--------+-------------------+--------+----------+
> > | threads | baseline time (ms) | stddev | patched time (ms) | stddev | overhead |
> > +---------+--------------------+--------+-------------------+--------+----------+
> > | 512 | 4.2410 | 0.9762 | 12.3660 | 5.1020 | +191.58% |
> > | 256 | 2.7750 | 0.3997 | 7.0220 | 2.9436 | +153.04% |
> > | 128 | 1.4910 | 0.4188 | 3.7430 | 0.8223 | +151.03% |
> > | 64 | 0.8970 | 0.3455 | 2.5570 | 0.3710 | +185.06% |
> > | 32 | 0.3620 | 0.2242 | 1.1300 | 0.4716 | +212.15% |
> > +---------+--------------------+--------+-------------------+--------+----------+
> >
>
> Whee, this is far more overhead than I would have expected... pretty
> impressive really for a simple mfence ;-)

*sigh* I just realized I had some extra debugging options in the .config
I ran for the patched kernel. This probably explains why the huge
overhead. I'll rerun and report shortly.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-26 20:41    [W:0.096 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site