Message-ID: <56F0B9A6.4040903@hpe.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:19:02 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of lock
 waiter
References: <1455298335-53229-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160216085111.GR6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160216085111.GR6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2016 03:19:08.4077 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AT5PR84MB0307
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1516
Lines: 39

On 02/16/2016 03:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:32:11PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> My own test on a 4-socket E7-4820 v3 system showed a regression of
>> about 4% in the high_systime workload with Peter's patch which this
>> new patch effectively eliminates.
>>
>> Testing on an 8-socket Westmere-EX server, however, has performance
>> change from -9% to than +140% on the fserver workload of AIM7
>> depending on how the system was set up.
> Subject: [lkp] [locking/mutex] aaca135480: -72.9% fsmark.files_per_sec
>
> My patch also generated the above email.
>
> Please also test that benchmark against this approach.
>

I also got an email from "kernel test robot", it didn't list fsmark at 
all. Instead, the subject was

[lkp] [locking/mutex] 5267438002: +38.9% 
fileio.time.involuntary_context_switches

       4409 ?  1%     +38.9%       6126 ?  2%  
fileio.time.involuntary_context_switches
       6.00 ?  0%     +33.3%       8.00 ?  0%  
fileio.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
      36.06 ?  0%     +43.0%      51.55 ?  0%  fileio.time.system_time
    1828660 ?  0%     -92.5%     137258 ?  0%  
fileio.time.voluntary_context_switches

Given that the number of voluntary context switches dropped by 92.5%, an 
increase in involuntary context switches that is order of magnitude less 
than the voluntary context switches should be OK, I think.

Do you know how to report back that this increase is expected and is 
nothing to worry about? Do I just reply it back?

Cheers,
Longman