Am 28.11.2014 um 13:21 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > > On 28/11/2014 12:32, Peter Lieven wrote: >> Am 28.11.2014 um 12:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >>> On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote: >>>> Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >>>>>> master: >>>>>> Run operation 40000000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns >>>>>> per coroutine >>>>>> >>>>>> paolo: >>>>>> Run operation 40000000 iterations 11.951720 s, 3346K operations/s, 298ns >>>>>> per coroutine >>>>> Nice. :) >>>>> >>>>> Can you please try "coroutine: Use __thread … " together, too? I still >>>>> see 11% time spent in pthread_getspecific, and I get ~10% more indeed if >>>>> I apply it here (my times are 191/160/145). >>>> indeed: >>>> >>>> Run operation 40000000 iterations 10.138684 s, 3945K operations/s, 253ns >>>> per coroutine >>> Your perf_master2 uses the ring buffer unconditionally, right? I wonder >>> if we can use a similar algorithm but with arrays instead of lists... >> Why do you set pool_size = 0 in the create path? >> >> When I do the following: >> diff --git a/qemu-coroutine.c b/qemu-coroutine.c >> index 6bee354..c79ee78 100644 >> --- a/qemu-coroutine.c >> +++ b/qemu-coroutine.c >> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Coroutine *qemu_coroutine_create(CoroutineEntry *entry) >> * and the actual size of alloc_pool. But it is just a >> heuristic, >> * it does not need to be perfect. >> */ >> - pool_size = 0; >> + atomic_dec(&pool_size); >> QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC(&alloc_pool, &release_pool); >> co = QSLIST_FIRST(&alloc_pool); >> >> >> I get: >> Run operation 40000000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns per >> coroutine > Because pool_size is the (approximate) number of coroutines in the pool. > It is zero after QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC has NULL-ed out release_pool.slh_first.
got it meanwhile. and its not as bad as i thought since you only steal the release_pool if your alloc_pool is empty. Right? Peter
