All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
To: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
	Luotao Fu <l.fu@pengutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vg
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc8-rt1: Strange latencies on mpc5200 powerpc - RCU	issue?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4875BF57.8030405@grandegger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080709145217.GB30586@pengutronix.de>

Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:15:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Hi Fu (without n)
>>
> ....
>> OK, in the past you have been able to reproduce the high latencies with  
>> 2.6.24-rt1 and CONFIG_RCU_TRACE disabled, IIRC. Did you use a different  
>> toolchain at that time?
>>
> 
> Nope. As mentioned above, trace_mark() does some "real" works (what ever it is.),
> while the new mechahnismen use flags to remember the state of preemption. Maybe

I don't known what you refer to, but in __rcu_preempt_unboost() of 2.6.25.8-rt7, 
the trace code simply increments a counter:

        static void rcu_trace_boost_##type(struct rcu_boost_dat *rbd)   \
        {                                                               \
                rbd->rbs_stat_##type++;                                 \
        }

and that's the reason why latency is not affected by switching CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
on (while trace_mark uses preempt_disable/preempt_enable around).

> something here got optimized away? I take for grant, that you use gcc in your
> toolchain. Which version do you have?

The ELDK v4.2 uses:

  ppc_6xx-gcc (GCC) 4.2.2

and 

  GLIBC v2.6

But I measured the same latencies with ELDK v4.1:

  ppc_6xx-gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 (DENX ELDK 4.1 4.0.0)

  GLIBC v2.3.5

Wolfgang.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
To: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
	Luotao Fu <l.fu@pengutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc8-rt1: Strange latencies on mpc5200 powerpc - RCU	issue?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4875BF57.8030405@grandegger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080709145217.GB30586@pengutronix.de>

Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:15:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Hi Fu (without n)
>>
> ....
>> OK, in the past you have been able to reproduce the high latencies with  
>> 2.6.24-rt1 and CONFIG_RCU_TRACE disabled, IIRC. Did you use a different  
>> toolchain at that time?
>>
> 
> Nope. As mentioned above, trace_mark() does some "real" works (what ever it is.),
> while the new mechahnismen use flags to remember the state of preemption. Maybe

I don't known what you refer to, but in __rcu_preempt_unboost() of 2.6.25.8-rt7, 
the trace code simply increments a counter:

        static void rcu_trace_boost_##type(struct rcu_boost_dat *rbd)   \
        {                                                               \
                rbd->rbs_stat_##type++;                                 \
        }

and that's the reason why latency is not affected by switching CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
on (while trace_mark uses preempt_disable/preempt_enable around).

> something here got optimized away? I take for grant, that you use gcc in your
> toolchain. Which version do you have?

The ELDK v4.2 uses:

  ppc_6xx-gcc (GCC) 4.2.2

and 

  GLIBC v2.6

But I measured the same latencies with ELDK v4.1:

  ppc_6xx-gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 (DENX ELDK 4.1 4.0.0)

  GLIBC v2.3.5

Wolfgang.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-07-10  7:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-17  4:27 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Steven Rostedt
2008-01-17  5:26 ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Mark Knecht
2008-01-17 10:13 ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-17 12:46   ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Luotao Fu
2008-01-17 16:17   ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Daniel Walker
2008-01-17 18:17     ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-17 18:30       ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Daniel Walker
2008-01-17 18:44         ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Steven Rostedt
2008-01-17 18:45         ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Steven Rostedt
2008-01-17 20:01           ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-17 18:46         ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-17 21:11   ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Robert Schwebel
2008-01-17 21:36     ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-23 14:53   ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1: Strange latencies on mpc5200 powerpc Luotao Fu
2008-01-23 15:50     ` Daniel Walker
2008-01-23 16:36     ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-24 10:53       ` Wolfgang Grandegger
     [not found]         ` <20080124112847.GE4776@unix.sh>
     [not found]           ` <47987D73.8090904@grandegger.com>
2008-01-24 13:49             ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2008-01-28 15:11       ` Luotao Fu
2008-01-28 15:38         ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-29 12:13           ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1: Strange latencies on mpc5200 powerpc - RCU issue? Luotao Fu
2008-01-29 13:38             ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-30  1:07               ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-01-30  8:18                 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-30 10:22                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-01-30 10:45                     ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-30 10:57                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-01-30 11:15                         ` Luotao Fu
2008-07-01 14:27                           ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-01 14:27                             ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-01 15:11                             ` Steven Rostedt
2008-07-01 16:11                               ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-01 21:11                                 ` Luotao Fu
2008-07-02 11:03                                 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-06  0:42                                   ` Steven Rostedt
2008-07-06  9:41                                     ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-08 15:08                                       ` Luotao Fu
2008-07-08 19:43                                         ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-08 19:43                                           ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-09 12:53                                           ` Luotao Fu
2008-07-09 13:15                                             ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-09 14:52                                               ` Luotao Fu
2008-07-10  7:50                                                 ` Wolfgang Grandegger [this message]
2008-07-10  7:50                                                   ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-08-01 21:09                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-01 21:09                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-08-05 15:40                                     ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-02  8:09                               ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-06  0:39                                 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-07-06  9:34                                   ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-30 11:22                         ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-01-17 19:57 ` 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 Mariusz Kozlowski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4875BF57.8030405@grandegger.com \
    --to=wg@grandegger.com \
    --cc=l.fu@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vg \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.