[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141028202637.GC8205@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:26:37 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: blk-mq vs cpu hotplug performance (due to percpu_ref_put
performance)
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 04:22:55PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:20:55PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > I have not verified this, but I guess what happens is:
> > hotplug
> > -> notify
> > -> blk_mq_queue_reinit_notify
> > -> blk_mq_queue_reinit
> > -> blk_mq_freeze_queue
> > -> percpu_ref_kill
> > -> percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm
> > -> __percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic
> > -> call_rcu_sched
>
> But call_rcu_sched() wouldn't show up as latency. It's an async call
> unlike synchronize_*().
I got confused, so perpcu_ref does wait for the async grace period
making it synchronous. I see what you mean. This isn't during init
but freezing itself being slow. Hmmmm... so are you seeing multiple
queues doing that back-to-back? If so, the right thing to do would be
making the freezing take place in parallel. I'll look into it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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