From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751882AbaHBGt6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2014 02:49:58 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:42510 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750782AbaHBGt4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2014 02:49:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:16:42 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks() Message-ID: <20140801151641.GG4784@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1406588180-21933-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140729081416.GR20603@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140729172304.GA16073@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140729173332.GM3935@laptop> <20140729180656.GY11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1406726619.5889.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20140730142311.GJ11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1406792228.6348.22.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20140731163819.GS11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1406861975.5319.5.camel@marge.simpson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1406861975.5319.5.camel@marge.simpson.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14080206-1542-0000-0000-000003B5BB85 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:59:35AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 09:38 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Does building with CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE=y slow things down even more? > > If so, that would give me a rough idea of the cost of RCU's dyntick-idle > > handling. > > Nope. Deltas are all down in the statistical frog hair. OK, then I guess that trying to squeeze down RCU's dyntick-idle detection won't be much help. Worth a thought, though, and thank you for running the tests! Thanx, Paul