[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130327025957.GA17125@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:57 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RT LATENCY] 249 microsecond latency caused by slub's
unfreeze_partials() code.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:32:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 18:27 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > If this makes it more deterministic, and lower worse case latencies,
> > > then it's definitely worth the price.
> >
> > Yes that would make it more deterministic. Maybe I should add an option
> > to be able to compile the allocator without cpu partial page support?
>
> I agree that would be useful.
Hello, Steven and Christoph.
How about using spin_try_lock() in unfreeze_partials() and
using spin_lock_contented() in get_partial_node() to reduce latency?
IMHO, this doesn't make code more deterministic, but can maintain
a benefit of cpu partial page with tolerable latency.
Thanks.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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