From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762326AbcALNvI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:51:08 -0500
Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:48388 "EHLO
	lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752278AbcALNvG (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:51:06 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:50:16 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
        mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ling <ling.ml@alibaba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] alispinlock: acceleration from lock integration on
 multi-core platform
Message-ID: <20160112135016.247c6ca5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAOGi=dPhZUiXAWwvrNXY=cPga9F16g2-N=MVVV-Oo-cFnQQyPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1451549374-30875-1-git-send-email-ling.ma.program@gmail.com>
	<20160105211834.GR6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160105214227.3a2adcd2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<20160106081643.GS6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160106082106.GU6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160106112450.6c5ad08b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<CAOGi=dPhZUiXAWwvrNXY=cPga9F16g2-N=MVVV-Oo-cFnQQyPg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.12.0 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:44:15 +0800
Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@gmail.com> wrote:

> The attachment (alispinlock.tar.bz2) includes original spinlock and
> alispinlock ,
> we compare them on 70 cores based on kernel 4.3, the alispinlock can
> improve performance upto 3x.
> 
> the link: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1035940.html
> indicates when we introduce the idea for real application(user space
> application  caused the bottle neck from  kernel spinlock )
> the spinlock performance is improved by 1.9x (perf top -d1 also tell
> us the spinlock cost time is reduced from 25% to 15%).
> 
> Appreciate your comments

So this has not been applied to actual real kernel locks (ie converted
some of the hot kernel locks to it) and then benchmarked with a real
world workload. This is just for the theoretical locking overhead ?

Alan