| To: | David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Optimize spinlocks. |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:54:24 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20100224155336.GA5130@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <1265311909-1679-1-git-send-email-ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> <20100224155336.GA5130@linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) |
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 04:53:36PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > And in your benchmarking patch you wrote: > > > spin_single spin_multi > > base 106885 247941 > > spinlock_patch 75194 219465 > > I did some benchmarking on an IP27 (180MHz, 2 CPU, needs LL/SC workaround): > > spin_single spin_multi > base 229341 3505690 > spinlock_patch 177847 3615326 > > So about 22% speedup for spin_single but 3% slowdown for spin_multi. > > Disabling the R10k LL/SC workaround btw. gives another 23% speedup for > spin_single and marginal 0.3% for spin_multi; the latter may well be > statistical noise. And I forgot the most important - patch queued for 2.6.34. Thanks! Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Optimize spinlocks., Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: crazy spinlock speed test., Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Optimize spinlocks., Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Optimize spinlocks., David Daney |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |