[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332128832.7283.34.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:47:12 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sivanich@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu: Permit limiting of force_quiescent_state()
latency
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 17:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Thank you very much for your efforts on this!!!
No problem, irq holdoff troubles are worth effort.
> Given that you were seeing about 200-microsecond latency spikes on
> grace-period initialization, I would expect that you would need about
> 200 dyntick-idle CPUs for force_quiescent_state() to give you a
> ten-microsecond spike, so I am not surprised that you could not see
> the difference on 60 CPUs, which probably have given you something
> like 3 microseconds..
Crawling over fewer locks should still save cycles, so I'll measure.
Big box rt needs every little usec we can scrape together.
-Mike
--
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