[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150220165409.GU5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:54:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace
periods
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 08:37:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:11:07AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So I though we wanted to get rid / limit the expedited stuff because its
> > IPI happy, and here its spreading.
>
> Well, at least it no longer IPIs idle CPUs. ;-)
>
> And this is during boot, when a few extra IPIs should not be a big deal.
Well the one application now is during boot; but you expose the
interface for all to use, and therefore someone will.
> > Does it really make a machine boot much faster? Why are people using
> > synchronous gp primitives if they care about speed? Should we not fix
> > that instead?
>
> The report I heard was that it provided 10-15% faster boot times.
That's not insignificant; got more details? I think we should really
look at why people are using the sync primitives.
--
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