From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261625AbVCXV5g (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:57:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261720AbVCXV5g (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:57:36 -0500 Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14]:36758 "EHLO scsfmr002.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261625AbVCXV5e (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:57:34 -0500 Message-Id: <200503242156.j2OLung08187@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Oleg Nesterov'" , Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Christoph Lameter" , "Andrew Morton" Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] timers: description Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:56:49 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcUuF8zyfnQnWiW7TWOFdI1wfRtqHgCn9F/Q In-Reply-To: <423ED7E4.2A1F0970@tv-sign.ru> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oleg Nesterov wrote on Monday, March 21, 2005 6:19 AM > These patches are updated version of 'del_timer_sync: proof of concept' > 2 patches. Looks good performance wise. Took a quick micro benchmark measurement on a 16-node numa box (32-way). Results are pretty nice (to the expectation). Time to execute del_timer_sync, averaged over 10,000 call: Vanilla 2.6.11 19,313 ns 2.6.12-rc1-mm1 81 ns del_singleshot_timer_sync 74ns Took another measurement on a 4-way smp box: Vanilla 2.6.11 648 ns 2.6.12-rc1-mm1 55 ns del_singleshot 41 ns And Andrew always asks what are the impact on real-world bench, we did not see performance regression on db transaction processing benchmark with these set of timer patches versus using del_singleshot_timer_sync. (del_singleshot_timer_sync is slightly faster, though 14 ns difference falls well into noise range) Note: I've only stress tested deleting an un-expired timer.