lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the tip tree
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:02:42AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:45:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:54:48AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > Argh!
> > > >
> > > > Andrew, please drop that patch. And the x86 out-of-line of __atomic_add_unless().
> > >
> > > Why dropping the second? Do you have something better?
> >
> > The try_cmpxchg() patches save about half the text, and do not have the
> > out-of-line penalty as shown here:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322165144.dtidvvbxey7w5pbd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>
> Where is the source for the benchmark?

In that email; heck marc.info even provides a downloadable link, you
don't even have to go find it in your local lkml archives.

> Based on the description it sounds like it's testing atomic_inc(),
> which my patches don't change.

Yes, reading is hard.

It tests:

lock incl

vs

call refcount_inc

vs

$inlined refcount_inc

And refcount_inc() is more complex than add_unless().

> BTW testing such things in tight loops is bad practice. If you run
> them back to back the CPU pipeline has to do much more serialization,
> which is usually not realistic and drastically overestimates
> the overhead.
>
> A better practice is to run some real workload. If you want to see
> cycle counts you can look at LBR cycles, or PT cycles from sampling or tracing.

Hey, at least I did benchmark it. You just waved your hands and are
causing extra work for other people.

> > > On the first there were no 0day regressions, so at least basic performance
> > > checking has been done.
> >
> > The first is superseded by much better patches in the scheduler tree.
>
> Which patches exactly? The new patches shrink the text too?

Try your local google foo; or look at the patch that conflicted, its
that one and the next.

In the end it comes down to -mm carrying patches against trees that are
maintained elsewhere without acks from said maintainers. I don't feel
bad about causing conflicts.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-31 19:50    [W:0.033 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site