[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1364847069-2887-1-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:11:07 -0500
From: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
To: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rjw@...k.pl
Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems
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 split the lock into two parts, cpu_driver_lock and
cpu_data_lock, with the cpufreq_driver also being protected by the RCU.
There was measurable heat left on the cpufreq_data_lock in __cpufreq_cpu_get.
So in the second part I converted the cpufreq_data_lock to be a rw lock since
an rcu solution was not apparent, at least to me.
v5: Go a different way and split up the lock and use the rcu
v6: use bools instead of checking function pointers
covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a rwlock
Nathan Zimmer (2):
cpufreq: split the cpufreq_driver_lock and use the rcu
cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a spinlock
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 302 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 219 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
--
1.8.1.2
--
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