[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090429110629.4B05.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:31:14 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
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
> > > > > 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.
It's nice joke. but not constructive.
but another idea and another patch are always welcome.
--
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