On Thursday, November 05, 2015 04:26:28 PM Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:32:18AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > mtx_lock will unconditionally try to grab the lock and if that fails, > > will call __mtx_lock_sleep which will immediately try to do the same > > atomic op again. > > > > So, the obvious microoptimization is to check the state in > > __mtx_lock_sleep and avoid the operation if the lock is not free. > > > > This gives me ~40% speedup in a microbenchmark of 40 find processes > > traversing tmpfs and contending on mount mtx (only used as an easy > > benchmark, I have WIP patches to get rid of it). > > > > Second part of the patch is optional and just checks the state of the > > lock prior to doing any atomic operations, but it gives a very modest > > speed up when applied on top of the __mtx_lock_sleep change. As such, > > I'm not going to defend this part. > Shouldn't the same consideration applied to all spinning loops, i.e. > also to the spin/thread mutexes, and to the spinning parts of sx and > lockmgr ?
I agree. I think both changes are good and worth doing in our other primitives. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"