What is the conclusion of this test? As far as I see, with the patch (0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect), the performance degradation is not fixed, but with pin-unpin patch, the performance seems to be better in most of the runs, however still you see less performance in some of the runs. Is that right?
Summary Of the Run:
-----------------------------
1. Throughout one run if we observe TPS every 30 seconds its stable in one run.
2. With Head 64 client run vary between ~250,000 to ~450000. you can see below results.
run1: 434860 (5min)
run2: 275815 (5min)
run3: 437872 (5min)
run4: 237033 (5min)
run5: 347611 (10min)
run6: 435933 (20min)
3. With Head + 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect with 64 client I always saw ~450,000 TPS
run1: 429520 (5min)
run2: 446249 (5min)
run3: 431066 (5min)
run4: 441280 (10min)
run5: 429844 (20 mins)
4. With Head+ 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect with 128 Client something performance is as low as ~150,000 which is never observed with Head (with head it is constantly ~ 350,000 TPS).
run1: 372958 (5min)
run2: 167189 (5min)
run3: 381592 (5min)
run4: 441280 (10min)
run5: 362742 (20 min)
5. With Head+pinunpin-cas-8, with 64 client its ~ 550,000 TPS and with 128 client ~650,000 TPS.
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)
Seems like Head+ pinunpin-cas-8 is giving best performance and without much fluctuation.
Can you answer some of the questions asked by Andres upthread[1]?
