On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here on Ubuntu/precise v12.04.3 AMD64 I get these numbers for total loops:
>
> lockref: w/o patch | w/ patch
> ======================
> Run #1: 2.688.094 | 2.643.004
> Run #2: 2.678.884 | 2.652.787
> Run #3: 2.686.450 | 2.650.142
> Run #4: 2.688.435 | 2.648.409
> Run #5: 2.693.770 | 2.651.514
Yes, so this is pretty much expected.
If you don't have a very high core count (you don't mention your
system, but that's pretty - I get ~65 million repetitions in 10
seconds on my i5-670), the cmpxchg will not help - because you don't
actually see the bad "wait on spinlock" behavior in the first place.
And a "cmpxchg" is slightly slower than the very optimized spinlocks,
and has that annoying "read original value" first issue too. So the
patch can make things a bit slower, although it will depends on the
microarchitecture (and as mentioned elsewhere, there are other things
that can make a bigger difference boot-to-boot - dentry allocation
details etc can have "sticky" performance impact).
So we may take a small hit in order to then *not* have horrible
scalability at the high end.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
