Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:58:48 -0500 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor |
| |
On 12/21/2012 10:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:51:35PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> However, since spinlock contention should not be the >> usual state, and all a scalable lock does is make sure >> that N+1 CPUs does not perform worse than N CPUs, using >> scalable locks is a stop-gap measure. >> >> I believe a stop-gap measure should be kept as simple as >> we can. I am willing to consider moving to a per-lock >> delay factor if we can figure out an easy way to do it, >> but I would like to avoid too much extra complexity... > > Rik, > > I like your solution. It's rather simple and simple solutions tend to > end up being the closest to optimal. The more complex a solution gets, > the more it starts chasing fireflies.
> Anyway, I'd like to see this code tested, and more benchmarks run > against it.
Absolutely. I would love to see if this code actually causes regressions anywhere.
It is simple enough that I suspect it will not, but there really is only one way to find out.
The more people test this with different workloads on different SMP systems, the better.
| |