[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191104092519.nukaz5qmgiskzafi@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:25:19 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
"Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/7] x86,rcu: use percpu rcu_preempt_depth
On 2019-11-02 12:45:59 [+0000], Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Convert x86 to use a per-cpu rcu_preempt_depth. The reason for doing so
> is that accessing per-cpu variables is a lot cheaper than accessing
> task_struct or thread_info variables.
Is there a benchmark saying how much we gain from this?
> We need to save/restore the actual rcu_preempt_depth when switch.
> We also place the per-cpu rcu_preempt_depth close to __preempt_count
> and current_task variable.
>
> Using the idea of per-cpu __preempt_count.
>
> No function call when using rcu_read_[un]lock().
> Single instruction for rcu_read_lock().
> 2 instructions for fast path of rcu_read_unlock().
I think these were not inlined due to the header requirements.
Boris pointed one thing, there is also DEFINE_PERCPU_RCU_PREEMP_DEPTH.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists