On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:45:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:54:48AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Argh! > > > > > > Andrew, please drop that patch. And the x86 out-of-line of __atomic_add_unless(). > > > > Why dropping the second? Do you have something better? > > The try_cmpxchg() patches save about half the text, and do not have the > out-of-line penalty as shown here: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322165144.dtidvvbxey7w5pbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Where is the source for the benchmark? Based on the description it sounds like it's testing atomic_inc(), which my patches don't change. BTW testing such things in tight loops is bad practice. If you run them back to back the CPU pipeline has to do much more serialization, which is usually not realistic and drastically overestimates the overhead. A better practice is to run some real workload. If you want to see cycle counts you can look at LBR cycles, or PT cycles from sampling or tracing. > > On the first there were no 0day regressions, so at least basic performance > > checking has been done. > > The first is superseded by much better patches in the scheduler tree. Which patches exactly? The new patches shrink the text too? -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
