On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 1/16/2018 3:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> All tests involve a user space application that allocates (malloc() with
> mlockall()) or in the case of Cache Pseudo-Locking maps using mmap()) a
> 256KB region of memory. The application then randomly accesses this
> region, 32 bytes at a time, measuring the latency in cycles of each
> access using the rdtsc instruction. Each time a test is run it is
> repeated ten times.
> In both the PALLOC and CAT tests there was improvement (CAT most
> significant) in latency accessing a 256KB memory region but in both
> (PALLOC and CAT) 512KB of cache was set aside for application to obtain
> these results. Using Cache Pseudo-Locking to access the 256KB memory
> region only 256KB of cache was set aside while also reducing the access
> latency when compared to both PALLOC and CAT.
> I do hope these results establishes the value of Cache Pseudo-Locking to
> you. 

Very nice. Thank you so much for doing this. That kind of data is really

My take away from this: All of the mechanisms are only delivering best
effort and the real benefit is the reduction of average latency. The worst
case outliers are in the same ballpark at seems.

> The rebased patch series used in this testing will be sent out
> this week.

I'll make sure to have cycles available for review.



Reply via email to