[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a858eaf3973979d0759ee016d39887e3@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:25:12 -0700
From: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: qiaozhou <qiaozhou@...micro.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wang Wilbur <wilburwang@...micro.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [Question]: try to fix contention between expire_timers and
try_to_del_timer_sync
Hi Will,
On 2017-07-31 06:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Vikram,
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
>> On 2017-07-28 02:28, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 06:10:34PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
>> >
>> This does seem to help. Here's some data after 5 runs with and without
>> the
>> patch.
>
> Blimey, that does seem to make a difference. Shame it's so ugly! Would
> you
> be able to experiment with other values for CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD? I
> had
> it set to 10000 in the diff I posted, but that might be higher than
> optimal.
> It would be interested to see if it correlates with num_possible_cpus()
> for the highly contended case.
>
> Will
Sorry for the late response - I should hopefully have some more data
with
different thresholds before the week is finished or on Monday.
Thanks,
Vikram
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists