Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76481-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: rulinhuang <rulin.huang@intel.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	urezki@gmail.com
Cc: colin.king@intel.com,
	hch@infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,
	lstoakes@gmail.com,
	rulin.huang@intel.com,
	tianyou.li@intel.com,
	tim.c.chen@intel.com,
	wangyang.guo@intel.com,
	zhiguo.zhou@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under multi-threading
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 07:10:45 -0500
Message-ID: <20240222121045.216556-1-rulin.huang@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZdW2HB-XdAJKph5s@pc636>
References: <ZdW2HB-XdAJKph5s@pc636>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Uladzislau and Andrew, we have rebased it(Patch v4) on branch 
mm-unstable and remeasured it. Could you kindly help confirm if 
this is the right base to work on?
Compared to the previous result at kernel v6.7 with a 5% performance 
gain on intel icelake(160 vcpu), we only had a 0.6% with this commit 
base. But we think our modification still has some significance. On 
the one hand, this does reduce a critical section. On the other hand, 
we have a 4% performance gain on intel sapphire rapids(224 vcpu), 
which suggests more performance improvement would likely be achieved 
when the core count of processors increases to hundreds or 
even thousands.
Thank you again for your comments.