[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4960A9E8.3090309@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:22:00 +0100
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] kernel/rcu: add kfree_rcu
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> I have not posted it. -:)
>
Could you post it?
Paul: What would break if we stop processing rcu entries in (cpu) order?
The head->func(head) in rcu_do_batch() is probably a nightmare for the
branch target predictor.
What about:
- shrinking struct rcu_head to just a pointer (let's start with the goodie)
- Adding a register_rcu_callback() function.
It allocates the per-cpu storage for the rcu grace period lists.
Seperate lists for each registered callback - thus no need to copy the
callback target into each rcu_head structure.
It returns a pointer/handle to these lists.
- call_rcu gets that handle instead of the plain function pointer.
- rcu_do_batch enumerates all registered callbacks. Thus first all
callback_struct->func(head) calls for the first registered callback,
then the calls for the 2nd callback, etc.
Better for the icache, better for the branch predictor.
Paul: Do you have a test case that is suitable for benchmarking rcu?
Any workloads were rcu appears significantly in oprofile?
And: Do you know how many rcu entries are typically alive? How much
memory is used for the function pointers?
--
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists