Mirror of the lttng-dev mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Josh Boyer)
Subject: [ltt-dev] cli/sti vs local_cmpxchg and local_add_return
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:56:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090318115624.GF3873@zod.rchland.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090317013220.GA22474@Krystal>

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:32:20PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am trying to get access to some non-x86 hardware to run some atomic
>primitive benchmarks for a paper on LTTng I am preparing. That should be
>useful to argue about performance benefit of per-cpu atomic operations
>vs interrupt disabling. I would like to run the following benchmark
>module on CONFIG_SMP :
>
>- PowerPC
>- MIPS
>- ia64
>- alpha
>
>usage :
>make
>insmod test-cmpxchg-nolock.ko
>insmod: error inserting 'test-cmpxchg-nolock.ko': -1 Resource temporarily unavailable
>dmesg (see dmesg output)
>
>If some of you would be kind enough to run my test module provided below
>and provide the results of these tests on a recent kernel (2.6.26~2.6.29
>should be good) along with their cpuinfo, I would greatly appreciate.
>
>Here are the CAS results for various Intel-based architectures :
>
>Architecture         | Speedup                      |      CAS     |         Interrupts         |
>                     | (cli + sti) / local cmpxchg  | local | sync | Enable (sti) | Disable (cli)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Intel Pentium 4      | 5.24                         |  25   | 81   | 70           | 61          |
>AMD Athlon(tm)64 X2  | 4.57                         |  7    | 17   | 17           | 15          |
>Intel Core2          | 6.33                         |  6    | 30   | 20           | 18          |
>Intel Xeon E5405     | 5.25                         |  8    | 24   | 20           | 22          |


I know you have results from a POWER6 machine already, but
here are the results on a dual-G5 running 2.6.29-rc7-git4.

If you are interested, I could get you results from running
this on an embedded PowerPC board.

josh

test init
test results: time for baseline
number of loops: 20000
total time: 1532
-> baseline takes 0 cycles
test end
test results: time for locked cmpxchg
number of loops: 20000
total time: 48052
-> locked cmpxchg takes 2 cycles
test end
test results: time for non locked cmpxchg
number of loops: 20000
total time: 29141
-> non locked cmpxchg takes 1 cycles
test end
test results: time for locked add return
number of loops: 20000
total time: 44985
-> locked add return takes 2 cycles
test end
test results: time for non locked add return
number of loops: 20000
total time: 32400
-> non locked add return takes 1 cycles
test end
test results: time for enabling interrupts (STI)
number of loops: 20000
total time: 65579
-> enabling interrupts (STI) takes 3 cycles
test end
test results: time for disabling interrupts (CLI)
number of loops: 20000
total time: 29135
-> disabling interrupts (CLI) takes 1 cycles
test end
test results: time for disabling/enabling interrupts (STI/CLI)
number of loops: 20000
total time: 173594
-> enabling/disabling interrupts (STI/CLI) takes 8 cycles
test end
[jwboyer at localhost ~]$




  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-03-18 11:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-17  1:32 Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-17  3:37 ` David Miller
2009-03-17  4:10   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-17  4:27     ` David Miller
2009-03-17  4:44       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-17  5:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-17 16:06   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-17 19:28     ` David Miller
2009-03-17 19:35       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-17  6:05 ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-17 15:14   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-18 11:43     ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-18 15:10       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-17 18:42 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-03-17 19:01   ` Andika Triwidada
2009-03-23 16:50   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-18 11:56 ` Josh Boyer [this message]
2009-03-23 16:56   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-03-23 17:04     ` Josh Boyer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090318115624.GF3873@zod.rchland.ibm.com \
    --to=jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox