I'll kick off some runs of my three benchmarks on ext3 for comparison.
If there are things less synthetic people would like to see, please let
me know.
What about a web-server test? Number of hits per second it can do?
Folkert van Heusden
--
MultiTail er et flexible tool for å kontrolere
I'll kick off some runs of my three benchmarks on ext3 for comparison.
If there are things less synthetic people would like to see, please let
me know.
What about a web-server test? Number of hits per second it can do?
Quick hack: http://vanheusden.com/tortureweb/tortureweb-0.1.tgz
To
So I don't dispute at all that mutex with spinning performs better than
a mutex, but I _do_ claim that it has some potentially huge downsides
compared to a real spinlock. It may perform as well as a spinlock in the
nice common case, but then when you hit the non-common case you see the
Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:16 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
btw., i think spin-mutexes have a design advantage here: in a lot of code
areas it's quite difficult to use spinlocks - cannot allocate memory,
cannot call any code that can
* Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 19:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Full series, including changelogs available at:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
and should
You just disproved your own case :(
how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
Ubuntu has CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y as well in their kernels.
Debian too:
mauer:~/bin# grep CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG /boot/config-2.6.2*
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:28:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[v2.6.14] [v2.6.29]
Semaphores | Mutexes
--
| no-spin spin
* Matthew Wilcox matt...@wil.cx wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:28:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[v2.6.14] [v2.6.29]
Semaphores | Mutexes
--
|
* Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Has anyone found a non-synthetic benchmark where this makes a
significant difference? Aside from btrfs, I mean.
Yea, if you have some particular filesystem (or other subsystem) that
uses a global mutex, you'll obviously see way
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
btw., i think spin-mutexes have a design advantage here: in a lot of code
areas it's quite difficult to use spinlocks - cannot allocate memory,
cannot call any code that can sporadically block (but does not _normally_
block), etc.
With mutexes
* Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
[ re: pipes, ok I don't know of realistic pipe benchmarks but I'll run
them if people can suggest one ]
Threaded servers making heavy use of sys_splice() ought to hit the pipe
mutex all the time.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:16:53AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
IOW, if you do pre-allocation instead of holding a lock over the
allocation, you win. So yes, spin-mutexes makes it easier to write the
code, but it also makes it easier to
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 05:01:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:16:53AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
IOW, if you do pre-allocation instead of holding a lock over the
allocation, you win. So yes, spin-mutexes
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:16:53AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
btw., i think spin-mutexes have a design advantage here: in a lot of code
areas it's quite difficult to use spinlocks - cannot allocate memory,
cannot call any code that can
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Full series, including changelogs available at:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
Linus,
Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree from:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 19:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Full series, including changelogs available at:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/
and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
Linus,
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
Linus,
Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git
adaptive-mutexes-for-linus
We dropped two fresh patches from v11 for the time being: the two debug
patches,
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 10:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
Please pull the adaptive-mutexes-for-linus git tree
fear
- It seems a major shortcoming that the feature
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
me weird.
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n, CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y is getting to be a pretty
small subset?
Could be, do you fancy me doing
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:00:08 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100 Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
Please pull the
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
me weird.
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n, CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y is getting to be
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:14:35 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:00:08 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:33:19 +0100
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:27:36 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 11:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
Well, I have it always enabled, but I've honestly no idea if that makes
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
If they suspect performance problems and want to analyze them?
The vast majority of users do not and usually cannot compile their own
kernels.
... which they derive from distro kernels or some old
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:51:22 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG?
If they suspect performance problems and want to analyze them?
The vast majority of users do not and usually cannot
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:14:58 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:51:22 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Do people enable
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
You just disproved your own case :(
how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
Ubuntu has CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y as well in their kernels.
note that there's also a performance issue here: we generally
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 22:41, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
You just disproved your own case :(
how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
Ubuntu has CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y as well in their kernels.
* Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 22:41, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
You just disproved your own case :(
how so? 80% is not enough? I also checked Fedora and it has
SCHED_DEBUG=y in its kernel rpms.
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
I also checked Fedora and it has SCHED_DEBUG=y
in its kernel rpms.
If all distros set SCHED_DEBUG=y then fine.
95% of the distros and significant majority of the lkml traffic.
And no, we dont generally dont provide knobs for essential
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:35:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
You're taking a whizzy new feature which drastically changes a critical
core kernel feature and jamming it into mainline with a vestigial
amount of testing coverage without giving sufficient care and thought
to the practical
31 matches
Mail list logo
