[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 21:04:50 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
darrick.wong@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
hughd@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, aspriel@...il.com,
vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org, robin.murphy@....com, joe@...ches.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
mhocko@...e.com, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk,
penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
jbacik@...com, mingo@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/10] rcu: Make CONFIG_SRCU unconditionally enabled
Hi Kirill,
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 12:59:40 +0300 Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.08.2018 04:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > So what sort of overheads (in terms of code size and performance) are
> > we adding by having SRCU enabled where it used not to be?
>
> SRCU is unconditionally enabled for x86, so I had to use another arch (sparc64)
> to check the size difference. The config, I used to compile, is attached, SRCU
> was enabled via:
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/Kconfig b/arch/sparc/Kconfig
> index 2d58c26bff9a..6e9116e356d4 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/sparc/Kconfig
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config SPARC
> select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_PARPORT if SPARC64 && PCI
> select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_SERIO
> select OF
> + select SRCU
> select OF_PROMTREE
> select HAVE_IDE
> select HAVE_OPROFILE
>
> $ size image.srcu.disabled
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 5117546 8030506 1968104 15116156 e6a77c image.srcu.disabled
>
> $ size image.srcu.enabled
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 5126175 8064346 1968104 15158625 e74d61 image.srcu.enabled
>
> The difference is: 15158625-15116156 = 42469 ~41Kb
Thanks for that.
> I have not ideas about performance overhead measurements. If you have ideas,
> where they may occur, please say. At the first sight, there should not be
> a problem, since SRCU is enabled in x86 by default.
I have no idea, just asking questions that might be relevant for
platforms where SRCU is normally disabled.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists