From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v0] Use swait in completion
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:07:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56DF14D4.4010203@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160308175206.GD21842@linutronix.de>
On 03/08/2016 06:52 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> However I don't think if your DEFER flag solution is all that bad. I
> have also the block-mq in -RT using swait and they perform wakes with
> irqs-off. Not in -RT but mainline. So me might need something to make it
> work properly. But if we defer the wakeup they might come at us and
> complain about the latency…
I intended to extend the test code to measure the latency diff as well.
Just to get a feeling how bad it is. At least with a lot of waiters on
the completion the current measurement indicate an improvement. I guess
with real workload the things look quite different.
cheers,
daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v0] Use swait in completion
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:07:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56DF14D4.4010203@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160308175206.GD21842@linutronix.de>
On 03/08/2016 06:52 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> However I don't think if your DEFER flag solution is all that bad. I
> have also the block-mq in -RT using swait and they perform wakes with
> irqs-off. Not in -RT but mainline. So me might need something to make it
> work properly. But if we defer the wakeup they might come at us and
> complain about the latency…
I intended to extend the test code to measure the latency diff as well.
Just to get a feeling how bad it is. At least with a lot of waiters on
the completion the current measurement indicate an improvement. I guess
with real workload the things look quite different.
cheers,
daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-08 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-08 15:59 [RFC v0] Use swait in completion Daniel Wagner
2016-03-08 15:59 ` [RFC v0] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Daniel Wagner
2016-03-08 17:52 ` [RFC v0] Use swait in completion Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-03-08 17:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-03-08 18:07 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2016-03-08 18:07 ` Daniel Wagner
2016-03-08 18:26 ` Josh Cartwright
2016-03-09 12:24 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-03-28 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-03-31 6:14 ` Daniel Wagner
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=56DF14D4.4010203@bmw-carit.de \
--to=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wagi@monom.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.