lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: Kernel lock elision for TSX
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:11:52 PM UTC+1, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Some questions and answers:
> >
> > - How much does it improve performance?
>
> > I cannot share any performance numbers at this point unfortunately.
> > Also please keep in mind that the tuning is very preliminary and
> > will be revised.
>
> If we don't know how much it helps, we can't judge whether it's worth
> even discussing this patch. It adds enough complexity that it had
> better be worth it, and without knowing the performance side, all we
> can see are the negatives.
>
> Talk to your managers about this. Tell them that without performance
> numbers, any patch-series like this is totally pointless.

Hello,

I don't know if the thread is still actual, but I have a Core i7 4770
as my home PC, which supports TSX. I bought it *exactly* to experiment
with hardware transactions.

I am willing to test and benchmark kernel patches, and since I do not
work for Intel I can tell all the quantitative performance differences
I find.

Obviously, they will be *my* results, not official Intel ones -
it's up to Andi Kleen or some other Intel guy to tell if they are ok
or not with this, but since CPUs with TSX are now available in shops,
non-disclosure about their performance seems a bit difficult to
enforce...

--

I can tell from my preliminary performance results that at least for
user-space RTM seems really fast. On my PC, the overhead of an empty
transaction is approximately 11 nanoseconds and a minimal transaction
reading and writing 2 or 3 memory addresses runs in approximately
15-20 nanoseconds.

I just hope I did not violate some non-disclosure condition attached
to the CPU guarantee certificate ;-)

I tested it both with GCC, using inline assembler and .byte directives,
and in Lisp (don't tell anybody), by writing a compiler module that
defines the XBEGIN, XTEST, XABORT and XEND primitives.

--

How can I help?

I would start with the patches already posted by Andi, but the ones
I found in LKML archives seem to belong to at least two different sets
of patches: xy/31 (September 2012) and xy/29 (March 2013) and I could
not find if the first ones are a prerequisite for the second.

Regards,

Massimiliano


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-01 00:01    [W:0.037 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site