Re: Re: [PATCH] futex: bugfix for futex-key conflict when futex usehugepage

From: zhang . yi20
Date: Thu Apr 18 2013 - 22:21:00 EST


Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2013/04/18 22:34:29:

> On 04/18/2013 01:05 AM, zhang.yi20@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > I have run futextest/performance/futex_wait for testing,
> > 5 times before make it long:
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10215 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 9862 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10081 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10060 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10081 Kiter/s
> >
> >
> > And 5 times after make it long:
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 9940 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10204 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 9901 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10152 Kiter/s
> >
> > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
> > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
> > Result: 10060 Kiter/s
> >
> >
> > Seems OK, is it?
> >
>
> Changes appear to be in the noise, no impact with this load
> anyway.
> How many CPUs on your test machine? I presume not 256?
>
> --

There are 16 CPUs, and mode is:
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU C5528 @ 2.13GHz

Shall I make the number of threads as the CPUS? I test again with argument
'-n 16', the result is similar.

BTW, have you seen the testcase in my other mail? It seems to be rejected
by LKML.
韬{.n?????%?lzwm?b?Р骒r?zXЩ??{ay????j?f"?????ア?⒎?:+v???????赙zZ+????"?!?O???v??m?鹈 n?帼Y&—