Hi all,
On 09/15/2013 08:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 23:34 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
The bug is probably also present in 3.10 and 3.11, but for these kernels
is is probably simpler just to move the test of sma->complex_count after
the spin_is_locked() test.
IMHO, your 6 patch series should go to stable as well. Scalability is
still BAD without them. Now, you've shown the lock split to be buggy.
Logically, the whole thing should be reverted entirely in stable, or
fixed up properly.
Davidlohr: Are you working on fixing the open issues?
IMHO Mike is right, especially for the 3.10 long-term kernel:
Either everything in ipc/*.c must be reverted or it should be fixed
properly (i.e.: cherry-pick ipc/*)
I have created bugzilla entries for all issues I'm aware of:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61351
I sent a patch yesterday.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61331
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61361
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
No patches for theses 5 bugs.
And: Given these numbers from Mike, I would hate to revert anything:
On 09/15/2013 10:06 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 08:09 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Humongous improvements...
(a couple sem-waitzero numbers)
master: Cpus 64, interleave 1 delay 0: 10039494796 in 30 secs
3.10.10: Cpus 64, interleave 1 delay 0: 129236313 in 30 secs
(rapidly scrolling micro-font bench vs reality disclaimer)
One semop() completed every 3 ns, around 600 cpu ticks per operation.
--
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/