Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967855Ab3DSCU6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:58 -0400 Received: from out1.zte.com.cn ([202.103.147.172]:52563 "EHLO zte.com.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967156Ab3DSCU5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51700475.7050102@linux.intel.com> References: <516EAF31.8000107@linux.intel.com> <516EBF23.2090600@sr71.net> <516EC508.6070200@linux.intel.com> <51700475.7050102@linux.intel.com> To: Darren Hart Cc: Dave Hansen , Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] futex: bugfix for futex-key conflict when futex use hugepage MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: D8FA3C9D:ACFCFB28-48257B52:0008A691; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 Message-ID: From: zhang.yi20@zte.com.cn Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:13:43 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2013-04-19 10:13:38, Serialize complete at 2013-04-19 10:13:38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn r3J2DxT3036700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r3J2L1sk020997 Content-Length: 2312 Lines: 67 Darren Hart wrote on 2013/04/18 22:34:29: > On 04/18/2013 01:05 AM, zhang.yi20@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > > I have run futextest/performance/futex_wait for testing, > > 5 times before make it long: > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10215 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 9862 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10081 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10060 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10081 Kiter/s > > > > > > And 5 times after make it long: > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 9940 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10204 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 9901 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10152 Kiter/s > > > > futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second > > Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256 > > Result: 10060 Kiter/s > > > > > > Seems OK, is it? > > > > Changes appear to be in the noise, no impact with this load > anyway. > How many CPUs on your test machine? I presume not 256? > > -- There are 16 CPUs?? and mode is: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU C5528 @ 2.13GHz Shall I make the number of threads as the CPUS? I test again with argument '-n 16', the result is similar. BTW, have you seen the testcase in my other mail? It seems to be rejected by LKML. ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?