On 2015-09-28 11:57 AM, Helge Deller wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 27.09.2015 18:27, John David Anglin wrote:
On 2015-09-22, at 12:20 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
The baseline for all results is the timing with a vanilla kernel 4.2:
real 0m13.596s
user 0m18.152s
sys 0m35.752s
The next results are with the atomic_hash (a) patch applied:
For ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE = 4.
real 0m21.892s
user 0m27.492s
sys 0m59.704s
For ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE = 64.
real 0m20.604s
user 0m24.832s
sys 0m56.552s
Attached is a revised patch "a" to try to improve performance of atomic_t variables. If you get a chance, could
you see how it performs.
here are the numbers for your revised "a" patch (on top of vanilla kernel 4.2):
real 0m20.040s
user 0m22.876s
sys 0m56.724s
(Variations can be around +- 0.5 seconds)
If you want to test yourself:
The testcase executable is on sibaris: /home/var_lib_sbuild_build/libatomic/libatomic-ops-7.4.2/test_atomic
It doesn't seem like the padding has much difference. I had hoped for
better although
the test probably doesn't test atomic_t variables. The regression from
the the vanilla
kernel is a problem.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.anglin@xxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
