From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755146AbZHMRIg (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:08:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755036AbZHMRIf (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:08:35 -0400 Received: from mtagate7.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.140]:63712 "EHLO mtagate7.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755088AbZHMRI3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:08:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:08:18 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linux Kernel , David Miller Subject: Re: inlined spinlocks on sparc64 Message-ID: <20090813170818.GA5117@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20090813082058.GX12579@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090813082058.GX12579@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:20:58AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > Hi, > > I deleted the original thread, so I can't reply there. Just a heads up > on the spinlock inlining on sparc64. I decided to give your patches a > shot, since one of my IO benchmarks here basically degenerates into a > spinlock microbenchmark with > 50% time spent there (unlock part, > according to perf). Some of that is surely caching effects, but still. > > For this particular workload, I get a net improvement of about 3.5% with > the inlined functions. Not bad. That sounds good! Btw. Andrew added the patches to his -mm tree, so it looks like the patches will be merged during the next merge window.