From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85456 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2019 04:13:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 85442 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jan 2019 04:13:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,BODY_8BITS,FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,GARBLED_BODY,GARBLED_FROM,GARBLED_SUBJECT,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-type:text, HContent-type:charset, HContent-type:plain, H*UA:sk:Microso X-HELO: out0-139.mail.aliyun.com X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R171e4;CH=green;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01a16378;MF=ling.ml@antfin.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---.DhB.9sE_1546575179; User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.5.181209 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 04:13:00 -0000 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOi9rOWPke+8mltQQVRDSF0gTlVNQSBzcGlubG9jayBbQlogIzIzOTYyXQ==?= From: "=?UTF-8?B?6ams5YeMKOW9puWGmyk=?=" To: Szabolcs Nagy , libc-alpha , "Lu, Hongjiu" , "Xiao, Wei3" CC: nd , "ling.ma.program" Message-ID: <666AA7A3-6ED4-415D-9CC3-F8778E2220F9@antfin.com> References: <20181226025019.38752-1-ling.ma@MacBook-Pro-8.local> <7D8A82D6-6F0A-4860-856A-EB0C8CD13E9C@antfin.com> <0a474516-b8c8-48cf-aeea-e57c77b78cbd.ling.ml@antfin.com> <8c67f319-31bf-818b-4a89-66d25328026e@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <8c67f319-31bf-818b-4a89-66d25328026e@arm.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 =EF=BB=BF=E5=9C=A8 2019/1/3 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8810:52=EF=BC=8C=E2=80=9CSzabol= cs Nagy=E2=80=9D =E5=86=99=E5=85=A5: On 03/01/2019 05:35, =E9=A9=AC=E5=87=8C(=E5=BD=A6=E5=86=9B) wrote: > create mode 100644 manual/examples/numa-spinlock.c > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa-spinlock-private= .h > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa-spinlock.c > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa-spinlock.h > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/numa_spinlock_alloc.c > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-numa-variable= -overhead.c > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-variable-over= head-skeleton.c > create mode 100644 sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-variable-over= head.c =20=20=20=20 as far as i can tell the new code is generic (other than the presence of efficient getcpu), so i think the test should be generic too. =20=20=20=20 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/tst-variable-overhead-skeleton.c > @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@ ... > +/* Check spinlock overhead with large number threads. Critical = region is > + very smmall. Critical region + spinlock overhead aren't noti= ceable > + when number of threads is small. When thread number increase= s, > + spinlock overhead become the bottleneck. It shows up in wall= time > + of thread execution. */ =20=20=20=20 yeah, this is not easy to do in a generic way, i think even on x86 such measurement is problematic, you don't know what goes on a system (or vm) when the glibc test is running. =20=20=20=20 but doing precise timing is not that important for checking the correctness of the locks, so i think a simplified version can be generic test code. Ling: It is good idea, we will try to send generic test case in next versio= n. Thanks Ling =20=20=20=20