[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141211175058.64a1c2fc@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:50:58 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: akpm@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] slub: Fastpath optimization (especially for RT) V1
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:03:24 -0600 (CST)
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > It looks like an impressive saving 116 -> 60 cycles. I just don't see
> > the same kind of improvements with my similar tests[1][2].
>
> This is particularly for a CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel. There will be no effect
> on !CONFIG_PREEMPT I hope.
>
> > I do see the improvement, but it is not as high as I would have expected.
>
> Do you have CONFIG_PREEMPT set?
Yes.
$ grep CONFIG_PREEMPT .config
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
Full config here:
http://people.netfilter.org/hawk/kconfig/config01-slub-fastpath01
I was expecting to see at least (specifically) 4.291 ns improvement, as
this is the measured[1] cost of preempt_{disable,enable] on my system.
[1] https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/lib/time_bench_sample.c
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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