[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090318080539.GD3960@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:35:39 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] cpuacct: Make cpuacct hierarchy walk in
cpuacct_charge() safe when rcupreempt is used.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:08:27PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:18:01 +0530
> Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Looks ok to me, but will wait for experts' comments.
> >
> > However, I did a quick measurement of read times with percpu_counter_read()
> > (no readside lock) and percpu_counter_sum() (readside lock) and I don't
> > see a major slowdown with percpu_counter_sum().
> >
> > Time taken for 100 reads of cpuacct.stat with 1s delay b/n every read.
> > percpu_counter_read() - 9845 us
> > percpu_counter_sum() - 9974 us
> >
> Then, almost 1 us overhead per read().....Hmm, seems big (as counter).
Well some cost for correct and accurate counter :)
BTW, I did a few more iterations and I don't see consistent numbers.
The results from 7 runs look like this:
percpu_counter_read() - 11325, 11549, 5939, 9999, 7129, 7758, 11385 us
percpu_counter_sum() - 8655, 9201, 8705, 11766, 10619, 9186, 8890 us
Regards,
Bharata.
--
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