[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090411162416.GC3496@sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:24:16 -0500
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Move calc_load call out from xtime_lock protection
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:51:36AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
>
> > The xtime_lock is being held for long periods on larger systems due
> > to an extensive amount of time being spent in calc_load(),
> > specifically here:
> > do_timer->update_times->calc_load->count_active_tasks->nr_active()
> >
> > On a 64 cpu system I've seen this take approximately 55 usec.
> > Presumably it would be worse on larger systems. This causes other
> > cpus to be held off in places such as
> > scheduler_tick->sched_clock_tick waiting for the xtime_lock to be
> > released.
>
> I thought more about that. Why don't we move the calc_load() call into
> the timer softirq context and avoid fiddling with all the call sites ?
> Also moving calc_load out of the timer interrupt context reduces the
> interrupts off section as well.
>
Sounds reasonable to me.
--
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