[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52138BE9.5090005@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:31:53 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] nohz: Synchronize sleep time stats with seqlock
On 8/20/2013 1:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:59:36PM +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
>> That said, if deemed acceptable, option A is the one I would
>> choose.
>
> Right, so I think we can do A without much extra cost mostly because we
> already have 2 atomics in the io_schedule() path. If we replace those
> two atomic operations with locks and modify nr_iowait and the other
> stats under the same lock, and ensure all those variables (including the
> lock) live in the same cacheline we should have the same cost we have
> now.
>
> Of course, if we can get away with completely removing all of that
> (which I think Arjan suggested was a real possibility) then that would
> be ever so much better still :-)
I'm quite ok with removing that.
however note that "top" also reports per cpu iowait...
and that's a userspace expectation
>
--
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