From: Pascal Chapperon <pascal.chapperon@wanadoo.fr>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: RCU related performance regression in 3.3
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:00:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F8ED6FE.1000104@wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120418140108.GA6034@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Le 18/04/2012 16:01, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Pascal Chapperon wrote:
>> Mount and umount operations are not slower with RCU_FAST_NO_HZ during
>> runtime; systemctl start and stop operations are also not slower. In
>> fact, i couldn't find a single operation slower during runtime with
>> RCU_FAST_NO_HZ.
>
> Your boot-time setup is such that all CPUs are online before the
> boot-time mount operations take place, right?
Yes :
[ 0.242697] Brought up 8 CPUs
[ 0.242699] Total of 8 processors activated (35118.33 BogoMIPS).
> Struggling to understand
> how RCU can tell the difference between post-CPU-bringup boot time
> and run time...
>
systemd is controlling the whole boot process including mount
operation (apart root filesystem) and as I can see, uses heavily
sockets to do it (not to mention cpu-affinity). It controls also the
major part of umount operations. Is it possible that your patch hits
a systemd bug ?
What I don't understand is that systemd coexists well with
RCU_FAST_NO_HZ on a smaller laptop with older and much less powerful
cpu.
I'll do further tests on another machine.
Pascal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-18 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-04 15:27 RCU related performance regression in 3.3 Josh Boyer
2012-04-04 21:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-05 12:37 ` Josh Boyer
2012-04-05 14:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-05 14:15 ` Pascal CHAPPERON
2012-04-05 14:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-06 9:18 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-04-10 16:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-11 15:06 ` Pascal
2012-04-12 18:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-16 21:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-18 9:37 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-04-18 14:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-18 15:00 ` Pascal Chapperon [this message]
2012-04-18 15:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-20 14:45 ` Pascal Chapperon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-04-27 12:15 Pascal Chapperon
2012-04-28 3:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-01 0:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-01 8:55 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-05-01 15:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-04 14:42 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-05-04 15:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-04 21:41 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-05-04 23:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-10 8:40 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-05-14 22:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-18 11:01 ` Pascal Chapperon
2012-05-18 12:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-18 14:48 ` Pascal Chapperon
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=4F8ED6FE.1000104@wanadoo.fr \
--to=pascal.chapperon@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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.