[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304713443.20980.124.camel@work-vm>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 13:24:03 -0700
From: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] time: xtime_lock is held too long
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 22:04 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 21:26 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 19:50 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> > > On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 07:42:47PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 18:59 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > If you have a better way to make it faster please share it.
> > > >
> > > > Ideally we could use RCU :)
> > >
> > > Hmm, I didn't think my case had a lot of loops in the seqlock -- just
> > > expensive cache misses -- but I should double check.
> > >
> > > For the lots of loop case we probably need to understand first why you
> > > iterate that often.
> >
> > Yep, I'll try to investigate on this
> >
>
> So apparently some calls to tick_do_update_jiffies64() are pretty
> expensive :
So would the easier solution be to just break out timekeeper locking
from the xtime_lock?
So basically we would just add a timekeeper.lock seqlock and use it to
protect only the timekeeping code? We can still keep xtime_lock around
for the tick/jiffies protection (well, until tglx kills jiffies :), but
gettimeofday and friends wouldn't be blocked for so long.
That should be pretty straight forward now that the timekeeper data is
completely static to timkeeeping.c.
thanks
-john
--
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