qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] coroutine: optimizations


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] coroutine: optimizations
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:35:09 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0


On 11/12/2014 14:55, Peter Lieven wrote:
> On 02.12.2014 12:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> As discussed in the other thread, this brings speedups from
>> dropping the coroutine mutex (which serializes multiple iothreads,
>> too) and using ELF thread-local storage.
>>
>> The speedup in perf/cost is about 50% (190->125).  Windows port tested
>> with tests/test-coroutine.exe under Wine.
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>> v1->v2: include the noinline attribute [many...]
>>     do not mention SwitchToFiber [Kevin]
>>     rename run_main_iothread_exit -> run_main_thread_exit
>>     leave personal opinions out of commit messages :) [Kevin]
>>     mention gain from patch 7 [Peter]
>>     change "alloc_pool_size +=" to "alloc_pool_size =" [Peter]
>>
>> Paolo Bonzini (7):
>>    coroutine-ucontext: use __thread
>>    qemu-thread: add per-thread atexit functions
>>    test-coroutine: avoid overflow on 32-bit systems
>>    QSLIST: add lock-free operations
>>    coroutine: rewrite pool to avoid mutex
>>    coroutine: drop qemu_coroutine_adjust_pool_size
>>    coroutine: try harder not to delete coroutines
>>
>>   block/block-backend.c     |   4 --
>>   coroutine-ucontext.c      |  64 +++++++---------------------
>>   include/block/coroutine.h |  10 -----
>>   include/qemu/queue.h      |  15 ++++++-
>>   include/qemu/thread.h     |   4 ++
>>   qemu-coroutine.c          | 104
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>   tests/test-coroutine.c    |   2 +-
>>   util/qemu-thread-posix.c  |  37 +++++++++++++++++
>>   util/qemu-thread-win32.c  |  48 ++++++++++++++++-----
>>   9 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> Whats the status of this series?

Maintainers are probably just waiting for a complete Reviewed-by.  If
you can provide performance numbers, that would help too.

Paolo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]