Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751979AbaJCExY (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:53:24 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48844 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096AbaJCExX (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:53:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1412311972.27162.3.camel@linux-t7sj.site> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Perf Bench: Locking Microbenchmark From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Tuan Bui , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulus@samba.org, acme@kernel.org, artagnon@gmail.com, jolsa@redhat.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , Jason Low , akpm@linux-foundation.org Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:52:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20141001052832.GA32248@gmail.com> References: <1412120999.2941.11.camel@u64> <20141001052832.GA32248@gmail.com> Organization: SUSE Labs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 07:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > If you compare an strace of AIM7 steady state and 'perf bench > lock' steady state, is it comparable, i.e. do the syscalls and > other behavioral patterns match up? With more than 1000 users I'm seeing: - 33.74% locking-creat [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock ◆ + mspin_lock ▒ + __mutex_lock_slowpath ▒ + mutex_lock ▒ - 7.97% locking-creat [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner ▒ + mutex_spin_on_owner ▒ + __mutex_lock_slowpath ▒ + mutex_lock Lower users count just shows the syscall entries. Of course, the aim7 setup was running on a ramdisk, thus avoiding any IO overhead in the traces. Thanks, Davidlohr -- 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/