Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:39:12 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use asm-goto to implement mutex fast path on x86-64
Message-ID: <20130702063912.GA3143@gmail.com>
References: <20130630220004.GA23124@pd.tnic>
 <20130701075046.GB1681@gmail.com>
 <20130701102306.GC23515@pd.tnic>
 <20130701111122.GA18772@gmail.com>
 <20130701122954.GD23515@pd.tnic>
 <20130701125045.GA24336@gmail.com>
 <20130701144851.GH23515@pd.tnic>
 <20130701222802.GK23515@pd.tnic>
 <CANeycqoq8LwLMoXEYdPE6m9eKVB7pRLw1hkSCjJ=jjDj9ej-Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130701224421.GL23515@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130701224421.GL23515@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1572
Lines: 38


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 03:35:47PM -0700, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > perf stat --repeat 10 -a --sync --pre 'make -s clean; echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' make -s -j64 bzImage
> > 
> > How many CPUs do you have in your system? Maybe -j64 vs -jNUM_CPUs
> > affects your measurements as well.
> 
> 8. But that shouldn't matter since I made the non-differing measurements 
> two mails back with -j64.
> 
> Also -j9, i.e. -j$(($NUM_CPUS+1)) gives "121.613217871 seconds time 
> elapsed" because with -j9 the probability of some core not executing a 
> make thread for whatever reason is higher than with -j64. But it is only 
> as high as an additional 1s with this workload.
> 
> I think with -j64 Ingo meant to saturate the scheduler to make sure 
> there always are runnable threads more than cores available so that we 
> can maximize the core utilization with threads running our workload.

Yeah - I didn't know your CPU count, -j64 is what I use.

Also, just in case it wasn't clear: thanks for the measurements - and I'd 
be in favor of merging this patch if it shows any improvement or if 
measurements lie within noise, because per asm review the change should be 
a win.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/