[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51153F72.1060005@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:39:54 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
walken@...gle.com, mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl, namhyung@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/45] CPU hotplug: stop_machine()-free CPU hotplug
On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>>> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c latency]
>>>>>
>>>>> # online CPUs Mainline (with stop-m/c) This patchset (no stop-m/c)
>>>>>
>>>>> 8 17.04 7.73
>>>>>
>>>>> 16 18.05 6.44
>>>>>
>>>>> 32 17.31 7.39
>>>>>
>>>>> 64 32.40 9.28
>>>>>
>>>>> 128 98.23 7.35
>>>>
>>>> Nice!
>>>
>>> Thank you :-)
>>>
>>>> I wonder how the ARM guys feel with their quad-cpu systems...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would be definitely interesting to know :-)
>>
>> That depends what exactly you'd like tested (and how) and whether you'd
>> like it to be a test-chip based quad core, or an OMAP dual-core SoC.
>>
>
> The effect of stop_machine() doesn't really depend on the CPU architecture
> used underneath or the platform. It depends only on the _number_ of
> _logical_ CPUs used.
>
> And stop_machine() has 2 noticeable drawbacks:
> 1. It makes the hotplug operation itself slow
> 2. and it causes disruptions to the workloads running on the other
> CPUs by hijacking the entire machine for significant amounts of time.
>
> In my experiments (mentioned above), I tried to measure how my patchset
> improves (reduces) the duration of hotplug (CPU offline) itself. Which is
> also slightly indicative of the impact it has on the rest of the system.
>
> But what would be nice to test, is a setup where the workloads running on
> the rest of the system are latency-sensitive, and measure the impact of
> CPU offline on them, with this patchset applied. That would tell us how
> far is this useful in making CPU hotplug less disruptive on the system.
>
> Of course, it would be nice to also see whether we observe any reduction
> in hotplug duration itself (point 1 above) on ARM platforms with lot
> of CPUs. [This could potentially speed up suspend/resume, which is used
> rather heavily on ARM platforms].
>
> The benefits from this patchset over mainline (both in terms of points
> 1 and 2 above) is expected to increase, with increasing number of CPUs in
> the system.
>
Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated the performance and
latency implications of CPU hotplug on ARM platforms, IIRC.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists