On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against > > > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison? > > > > > > > > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree? > > > > > > I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest > > > version. > > > > > > The last on-lkml submission was in this thread: > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > I queued bunchs of tests about one hour ago, and already got some > > results(If necessary, I can add more data tomorrow when those tests are > > finished): > > What kind of system are you using to run these workloads on?
I queued jobs on 5 testboxes: - brickland1: 120 core Ivybridge server - lkp-ib03: 48 core Ivybridge server - lkp-sb03: 32 core Sandybridge server - lkp-nex04: 64 core NHM server - lkp-a04: Atom server > > > > > > > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d > > ------------------------ ------------------------ > > -9.3% > > brickland1/micro/aim7/shared > > +4.3% > > lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/fork_test > > +2.2% > > lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/shared > > -2.6% TOTAL > > aim7.2000.jobs-per-min > > > > Sorry if I'm missing something, but could you elaborate more on what > these percentages represent? v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d ------------------------ ------------------------ -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared .... .... -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min The comparation base is v3.12-rc7, and we got 9.3 performance regression at commit fe001e3de090e179f95d, which is the head of rwsem performance optimizations patch set. "brickland1/micro/aim7/shared" tells the testbox(brickland1) and testcase: shared workfile of aim7. The last line tell what field we are comparing, and it's "aim7.2000.jobs-per-min" in this case. 2000 means 2000 users in aim7. > Are they anon vma rwsem + optimistic > spinning patches vs anon vma rwlock? I tested "[PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations" only. > > Also, I see your running aim7, you might be interested in some of the > results I found when trying out Ingo's rwlock conversion patch on a > largish 80 core system: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/29/280 Besides aim7, I also tested dbench, hackbench, netperf, pigz. And as you can image and see from the data, aim7 benifit most from the anon_vma optimization stuff due to high contention of anon_vma lock. Thanks. --yliu -- 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/