[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3505617.pgqBjPDzlA@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:23:08 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems
On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:24:33 AM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> I am noticing the cpufreq_driver_lock is quite hot.
> On an idle 512 system perf shows me most of the system time is spent on this
> lock. This is quite significant as top shows 5% of time in system time.
> My solution was to first convert the lock to a rwlock and then to the rcu.
>
> v2: Rebase
>
> v3: Read the RCU documentation instead of skimming it. Also I based on
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git pm+acpi-3.9-rc1
> I assumed that was what you would prefer Rafael.
>
> v4: Removed an unnecessary syncronize_rcu().
>
>
> Nathan Zimmer (2):
> cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to a rwlock
> cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu
>
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 286 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 211 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
I'm going to take patch [1/2] for v3.10, but patch [2/2] still needs some
work it seems. Is that correct? If so, are you going to send an update?
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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