[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwyC5YDKgmc_FFi7QEDO_5io+2y-xneMtyuHApsURGaxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:59:08 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer to
improve scalability
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
>
> I tested this patch on a 32 bit ARM system with 4 cores. Using the
> generic 64 bit atomics, I did not see any performance change with this
> patch, and the relevant functions (account_group_*_time(), ect...) don't
> show up in perf reports.
Ok.
> One factor might be because locking/cacheline contention isn't as
> apparent on smaller systems to begin with, and lib/atomic64.c also
> mentions that "this is expected to used on systems with small numbers of
> CPUs (<= 4 or so)".
Yeah, that's probably a valid argument anyway - 32-bit systems aren't
really going to be multi-node big systems any more.
So I'm ok with the patch,
Linus
--
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