[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130327061351.GB17125@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:13:51 +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 Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:30:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 11:59 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And what do you do when you fail the try lock? Try again, or just break
> out?
Just break out.
>
> We can run benchmarks, but I don't like playing games in -rt. It either
> is deterministic, or it isn't.
Okay.
>
> -- 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