Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86: reduce paravirtualized spinlock overhead

[Juergen Gross]

On 04/30/2015 06:39 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 04/30/2015 03:53 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
> > running on bare metal. The main reason are the more complex locking
> > and unlocking functions. Especially unlocking is no longer just one
> > instruction but so complex that it is no longer inlined.
> >
> > This patch series addresses this issue by adding two more pvops
> > functions to reduce the size of the inlined spinlock functions. When
> > running on bare metal unlocking is again basically one instruction.
>
> Out of curiosity, is there a measurable difference?

I did a small measurement of the pure locking functions on bare metal
without and with my patches.

spin_lock() for the first time (lock and code not in cache) dropped from
about 600 to 500 cycles.

spin_unlock() for first time dropped from 145 to 87 cycles.

spin_lock() in a loop dropped from 48 to 45 cycles.

spin_unlock() in the same loop dropped from 24 to 22 cycles.


Juergen
--
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/