From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
To: Jirka Hladky <jhladky@redhat.com>,
"Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@kernel.org>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, maddy@linux.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
npiggin@gmail.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] powerpc: enable dynamic preemption
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:32:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4be922b5-7dc2-48c1-938c-de02245bc5e2@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE4VaGD0Ekz+5s26iTW=UV4PuBkUm9AzorBgAVGJBjttH7sMWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi.
On 7/31/26 12:48 PM, Jirka Hladky wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 7:03 AM Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)
> <chleroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 30/07/2026 à 19:10, Shrikanth Hegde a écrit :
>>> Hi Jirka, Paul,
>>>
>>>
>>> +cc will
>>>
>>> On 7/30/26 8:38 PM, Jirka Hladky wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 4:53 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> But is this really a fundamental RISC cost? For example, does arm64
>>>>> see the same performance issues?
>>>>
>>>> We tested arm64 (Ampere Altra Max) with the same controlled
>>>> experiment -- two 6.18 kernels, both voluntary, differing only in
>>>> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC:
>>>>
>>>> Arch PREEMPT_DYNAMIC kill bogo-ops/sec Delta
>>>> ------- --------------- ----------------- -----
>>>> ppc64le off 108,836
>>>> ppc64le on 68,197 -37.3%
>>>> aarch64 off 5,538
>>>> aarch64 on 5,082 -8.2%
>>>>
>>>> arm64 sees -8.2% vs ppc64le's -37.3%. So arm64 is affected but
>>>> much less severely.
>>>
>>> Ouch!. But that's good to know.
>>
>> Might be a stupid question, but what is your .config ?
>> Are you sure it doesn't contain CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT ?
>
> I have double-checked that and it's not set:
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is not set
>
> Thanks
> Jirka
>
Coming into numbers, I did notice later, arm64 numbers are almost 20x less.
I believe you are having similar core count or benchmark is same.
But if we compare the time taken for each operations, it tells a different story.
PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
ppc64le off 108836 ops/s = 9.19 us/op
ppc64le on 68197 ops/s = 14.66 us/op
delta +5.47 us/op
aarch64 off 5538 ops/s = 180.57 us/op
aarch64 on 5082 ops/s = 196.77 us/op
delta +16.20 us/op
PS: I tried porting some of those changes in arm64 to powerpc to split preempt count into
two. but i don;t see much improvement there. If i see get better numbers i will reply with
that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-31 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-10 18:43 [PATCH v4 0/1] powerpc: Enable dynamic preemption Shrikanth Hegde
2025-02-10 18:43 ` [PATCH v4 1/1] powerpc: enable " Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-26 18:33 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-27 4:18 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-27 10:13 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-27 10:28 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-27 10:35 ` Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)
2026-07-27 16:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-27 10:59 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-27 11:03 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-27 12:34 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-27 16:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-27 16:50 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-27 17:10 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-27 18:29 ` Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)
2026-07-28 5:27 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-28 16:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-28 16:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-30 13:01 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-30 14:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-28 0:26 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-28 5:11 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-28 14:19 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-30 6:44 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-30 12:08 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-30 14:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-30 15:08 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-30 16:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-30 17:10 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-30 17:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-30 18:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2026-07-31 4:59 ` Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)
2026-07-31 5:03 ` Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)
2026-07-31 7:18 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-31 8:02 ` Shrikanth Hegde [this message]
2026-07-31 13:50 ` Jirka Hladky
2026-07-31 17:57 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-07-31 18:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-08-03 4:51 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-08-03 15:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=4be922b5-7dc2-48c1-938c-de02245bc5e2@linux.ibm.com \
--to=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=chleroy@kernel.org \
--cc=jhladky@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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.