This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Updated rwlock-in-C patchkit
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 14:33:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: Updated rwlock-in-C patchkit
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1395789863-5026-1-git-send-email-andi at firstfloor dot org> <1397248605 dot 10643 dot 18269 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <53497694 dot 4040901 at redhat dot com> <20140412194007 dot GA1284 at domone dot podge> <1397402907 dot 10643 dot 19303 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <534B8B38 dot 8090402 at redhat dot com> <8761m9iekn dot fsf at tassilo dot jf dot intel dot com> <87mwfifiks dot fsf at tassilo dot jf dot intel dot com> <53603208 dot 8060205 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 19:13 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 05:12 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Andi Kleen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> "Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> writes:
> >>> That's right. I'd like to see the whatever code was used to benchmark
> >>> the performance submitted as a microbenchmark so I can run it myself
> >>> and verify. Again, it's not that I don't trust Andi, but an objective
> >>> evaluation is always going to be the best defense for these changes.
> >> Here is the code I used:
> > Any comments now? Is the code ok to commit now?
I've seen a few minor issues (see reply to patch).
> > If yes please someone with access rights commit it.
> Sorry, April is busy.
> Torvlad, Have you had a chance to look at this?
Someone needs to put this benchmark into benchtest form. (Otherwise, we
won't fulfill your requirement of having microbenchmarks...)
We could also consider adding a scalability benchtest for the rwlock,
and using the single thread data from it to compare. That's on my list
of things to do, but haven't gotten to this yet.