[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090428103701.GE3825@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:07:01 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING don't prevent percpu
cputime count
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 05:10:47PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 04:38:51PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:53:32PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW, did you observe any real problem with the percpu counter spinlock ?
> > >
> > > No.
> > > I review percpu_counter() caller recently and it seems stragen usage.
> > >
> >
> > I should have phrased the question better ...
> >
> > So have you found any performance degradation with any benchmarks/workloads
> > on archs which define VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING due to percpu_counter spinlock
> > being taken on every tick ? If the answer is no, don't you think we could
> > wait before making the kind of change you are proposing ?
>
> maybe, I don't understand your point.
My point is, let us not make this change if it is not a real problem that
has been observed on archs which define VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
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