[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120131143022.GE13676@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:30:23 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
arjanvandeven@...il.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: x86: clean up smpboot.c's use of udelay+schedule
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:43:41 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > + usleep_range(100, 200);
> >
> > I'm wondering whether we could shorten this delay to say 10
> > usecs and thus save 0.1 msecs (or more) from a typical SMP
> > bootup?
>
> doesn't matter really; [...]
It matters somewhat, especially if PeterZ's suggestion is used,
which is far more clean as well. The magic delays are not really
justified anymore.
> [...] bringing up a cpu is several orders more expensive (>
> 100msec in 3.2, in 3.3 this got optimized to maybe 30 msec)
> 0.1 msec is the least of anyone's worries at this point ;-)
It's 3% of the 30 msecs overhead.
> ( would be nice if this was a completion, but this is rather
> fragile code in general... at least not making it spin is an
> incremental improvement )
Completions arent hard to use and the scheduler should be up and
running at this stage already.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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