Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1312017
| From | Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] alispinlock: acceleration from lock integration on multi-core platform |
| Date | 2016-01-19 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qSAiS-5me-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <qNRDJ-71N-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNUrU-sc-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qOO14-4T5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQ7En-1Fv-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQLip-4lJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Is it acceptable for performance improvement or more comments on this patch? Thanks Ling 2016-01-14 16:10 GMT+08:00 Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com>: > Alan, > > The attachment (alispinlock.tar.bz2) in last email includes our > sample cases for spinlock. > The attachment (lock_test.tar.bz2) in this email includes the patch on > kernel 4.3v , > which has been applied to actual real kernel locks: > when we run the user space program (thread.c) on 72cores E5-2699v3, > it cause many hot kernel spinlocks from __kmalloc and kfree respectively > with original spinlock cpu cost 25% and 92715428576 cycles after > lock/unlock 1000000 times > with ali spinlock cpu cost 15% and 48475891244 cycles after > lock/unlock 1000000 times. > So we say in the real world workload the ali spinlock improve > performance by 1.9x > (92715428576 cycles/48475891244 cycles) > > Thanks > Ling > > the > > 2016-01-12 21:50 GMT+08:00 One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>: >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:44:15 +0800 >> Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The attachment (alispinlock.tar.bz2) includes original spinlock and >>> alispinlock , >>> we compare them on 70 cores based on kernel 4.3, the alispinlock can >>> improve performance upto 3x. >>> >>> the link: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1035940.html >>> indicates when we introduce the idea for real application(user space >>> application caused the bottle neck from kernel spinlock ) >>> the spinlock performance is improved by 1.9x (perf top -d1 also tell >>> us the spinlock cost time is reduced from 25% to 15%). >>> >>> Appreciate your comments >> >> So this has not been applied to actual real kernel locks (ie converted >> some of the hot kernel locks to it) and then benchmarked with a real >> world workload. This is just for the theoretical locking overhead ? >> >> Alan
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH] alispinlock: acceleration from lock integration on multi-core platform Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:00 +0100 Re: [RFC PATCH] alispinlock: acceleration from lock integration on multi-core platform Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2016-01-19 16:40 +0100
csiph-web