[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1297358844.2645.140.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:27:24 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: markgross@...gnar.org
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
David Alan Gilbert <linux@...blig.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len <len.brown@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] idle governor: Avoid lock acquisition to read pm_qos
before entering idle
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 21:10 -0800, mark gross wrote:
>
> I'm surprised by this as the last update to the pm_qos replaced the
> lists with a O(1) data structure so there was no more walking of pending
> requests.
But you need to acquire a lock before you can read the value on the list
within the function pm_qos_request. This is a problem if there are a
lot of cpus doing so.
>
> What is the profile after the patch the Plist should be only one
> dereference and an if instruction slower than a cached value.
After the patch, the acquisition of the lock on plist go away from the
profile, and I see a 12% improvement in throughput to the message
passing benchmark I was running.
>
> Does your patch remove the need for the locks because if it doesn't I
> don't see how it will make much of a difference?
We still need the lock to update/remove/insert values in the plist and
to update the cached value. The intention of the patch is to avoid lock
acquisition by reading from a cached value that is up to date. Lock
acquisition is needed --every time-- when a cpu go into idle, which is
bad as you want to let a cpu go to idle ASAP.
Tim
--
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