[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55613904.7060502@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:35:48 +0800
From: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched, cgroup: replace signal_struct->group_rwsem
with a global percpu_rwsem
On 2015/5/22 4:39, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:05:37PM +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
>>> The latency is bound by synchronize_sched_expedited(). Given the way
>>> cgroups are used in majority of setups (process migration happening
>>> only during service / session setups), I think this should be okay.
>>
>> Actually process migration can happen quite frequently, for example in
>> Android phones, and that's why Google had an out-of-tree patch to remove
>> the synchronize_rcu() in that path, which turned out to be buggy.
>
> It's still not a very frequent operation tho. We're talking about
> users switching fore/background jobs here and the expedited
> synchronization w/ preemption enabled doesn't take much time. In
> addition, as it currently stands, android is doing memory charge
> immigration on each fore/background switches. I'm pretty doubtful
> this would make any difference.
>
I did some testing with my laptop.
Moving a task between 2 cgroups for 10W times with one or two threads:
1T 2T
orig 3.36s 3.65s
orig+tj 3.55s 6.31s
orig+sync_rcu 16.69s 28.47s (only 1000 times)
The overhead looks acceptable.
--
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