[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230714105615.1ff9b8d2@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:56:15 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, xiang@...nel.org,
Will Shiu <Will.Shiu@...iatek.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when
!CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:51:16 +0800
Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >> we need to work on
> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n (why not?), we could just always trigger a
> >> workqueue for this.
> >>
> >
> > So CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n users don't deserve good performance? ;-)
>
> I'm not sure if non-preemptible kernel users really care about
> such sensitive latencies, I don't know, my 2 cents.
CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n is for *performance* but not for *latency*. That is,
they care about the overall performance (batch processing) but not
interactive performance.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists