Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for locklessupdate of refcount

[Ingo Molnar]

* Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On 09/05/2013 09:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Waiman Long<waiman.long@xxxxxx>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The latest tty patches did work. The tty related spinlock contention
> >>is now completely gone. The short workload can now reach over 8M JPM
> >>which is the highest I have ever seen.
> >>
> >>The perf profile was:
> >>
> >>5.85%     reaim  reaim                 [.] mul_short
> >>4.87%     reaim  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] ebitmap_get_bit
> >>4.72%     reaim  reaim                 [.] mul_int
> >>4.71%     reaim  reaim                 [.] mul_long
> >>2.67%     reaim  libc-2.12.so          [.] __random_r
> >>2.64%     reaim  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] lockref_get_not_zero
> >>1.58%     reaim  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] copy_user_generic_string
> >>1.48%     reaim  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] mls_level_isvalid
> >>1.35%     reaim  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] find_next_bit
> >6%+ spent in ebitmap_get_bit() and mls_level_isvalid() looks like
> >something worth optimizing.
> >
> >Is that called very often, or is it perhaps cache-bouncing for some
> >reason?
> 
> The high cycle count is due more to inefficient algorithm in the 
> mls_level_isvalid() function than cacheline contention in the code. The 
> attached patch should address this problem. It is in linux-next and 
> hopefully will be merged in 3.12.

Great!

If/when you happen to boot the latest & greatest kernel that has all these 
scalability patches applied it would be nice if you could send an updated 
profile into this thread.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/