Re: [PATCH 8/5] llist: Remove cpu_relax() usage in cmpxchg loops

[Avi Kivity]

On 09/12/2011 05:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:26 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  On 09/12/2011 05:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >  >  Subject: llist: Remove cpu_relax() usage in cmpxchg loops
> >  >  From: Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> >  >  Date: Mon Sep 12 15:50:49 CEST 2011
> >  >
> >  >  Initial benchmarks show they're a net loss (2 socket wsm):
> >  >
> >  >    $ for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ; do echo performance>   $i; done
> >  >    $ echo 4096 32000 64 128>   /proc/sys/kernel/sem
> >  >    $ ./sembench -t 2048 -w 1900 -o 0
> >  >
> >
> >  We hyperthreading enabled, and were all threads loaded?  cpu_relax
> >  allows the other thread to make more progress while the spinner relaxes.
>
> Yeah, with HT enabled, the benchmark runs 2048 tasks and does 1900 task
> bulk wakeups or so. Forgot the details, but it basically stresses the
> sleep+wakeup paths like nobodies business.

Ok.

Another issue is that hypervisors use PAUSE to detect a spinning guest 
and issue a directed yield to another vcpu.  But for cmpxchg loops, the 
"spinner" would just commit on the next loop, no?  So I think there's no 
objection from that front.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/