Hi,
On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 6. With Head+ pinunpin-cas-8 +
> 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect performance is
> almost same as with
> Head+pinunpin-cas-8, only sometime performance at 128 client is low
> (~250,000 instead of 650,000)
Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
(requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?
Regards,
Andres
