[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345820311.4824.2.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:58:31 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
adobriyan@...il.com, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock
Le vendredi 24 août 2012 à 09:48 -0500, Nathan Zimmer a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:42:58PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 20:28 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Thats interesting, but if you really want this to fly, one RCU
> > > conversion would be much better ;)
> > >
> > > pde_users would be an atomic_t and you would avoid the spinlock
> > > contention.
> >
> > Here is what I had in mind, I would be interested to know how it helps a 512 core machine ;)
> >
>
> Here are the results and they look great.
>
> cpuinfo baseline moved kfree Rcu
> tasks read-sec read-sec read-sec
> 1 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141
> 2 0.0140 0.0140 0.0142
> 4 0.0140 0.0141 0.0141
> 8 0.0145 0.0145 0.0140
> 16 0.0553 0.0548 0.0168
> 32 0.1688 0.1622 0.0549
> 64 0.5017 0.3856 0.1690
> 128 1.7005 0.9710 0.5038
> 256 5.2513 2.6519 2.0804
> 512 8.0529 6.2976 3.0162
>
>
>
Indeed...
Could you explicit the test you are actually doing ?
Thanks
--
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