[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150221180002.GU5745@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:00:02 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:51:34AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>
> >>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?
> >
> >It would be good to have before-and-after measurements of actual
> >boot time. Are these numbers available?
>
>
> To show the boot time, I'm using the timestamp of the "Write protecting" line,
> that's pretty much the last thing we print prior to ring 3 execution.
>
> A kernel with default RCU behavior (inside KVM, only virtual devices) looks like this:
>
> [ 0.038724] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 10240k
>
> a kernel with expedited RCU (using the command line option, so that I don't have
> to recompile between measurements and thus am completely oranges-to-oranges)
>
> [ 0.031768] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 10240k
>
> which, in percentage, is an 18% improvement.
Thank you, will repost with this info.
Thanx, Paul
--
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