[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54E76FB7.4060005@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:32:39 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
>>>> 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.
>
> I must defer to the people who took the exact measurements.
>
> But yes, once I have that info, I should add it to the commit log.
so the two most obvious cases are
Registering sysrq keys ... even when the old key code had no handler
(have a patch pending for this)
registering idle handlers
(this is more tricky, it's very obvious abuse but the fix is less clear)
there's a few others as well that I'm chasing down...
.. but the flip side, prior to running ring 3 code, why NOT do fast expedites?
--
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