[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+fCnZdAUo1CKDK4kiUyR+Fxc_F++CFezanPDVujx3u7fBmw=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:08:56 +0200
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: andrey.konovalov@...ux.dev,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] stackdepot: use read/write lock
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:19 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > Good suggestion. I propose that we keep the rwlock for now, and I'll
> > check whether the performance is better with percpu-rwsem once I get
> > to implementing and testing the performance changes. I'll also check
> > whether percpu-rwsem makes sense for stack ring in tag-based KASAN
> > modes.
>
> I think it's quite obvious that the percpu-rwsem is better. A simple
> experiment is to measure the ratio of stackdepot hits vs misses. If
> the ratio is obviously skewed towards hits, then I'd just go with the
> percpu-rwsem.
>
> The performance benefit may not be measurable if you use a small system.
I started looking into using percpu-rwsem, but it appears that it
doesn't have the irqsave/irqrestore API flavor. I suspect that it
shouldn't be hard to add it, but I'd rather not pursue this as a part
of this series.
So I still propose to keep the rwlock for now, and switch to
percpu-rwsem later together with the other perf changes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists