From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>,
masahiroy@kernel.org, williams@redhat.com,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lib/raid6: Reduce high latency by using migrate instead of preempt
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 19:17:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YbzUVgPH9KDAMpA1@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPhsuW7GhYyfNOQg3VovU7cqC0nnRTbm1B7bFkWWa75k8YgHew@mail.gmail.com>
On 2021-12-17 09:25:25 [-0800], Song Liu wrote:
> > The delay is a jiffy so it depends on CONFIG_HZ. You do benchmark for
> > the best algorithm and if you get preempted during that period then your
> > results may be wrong and you make a bad selection.
>
> With current code, the delay _should be_ 16 jiffies. However, the experiment
> hits way longer latencies. I agree this may cause inaccurate benchmark results
> and thus suboptimal RAID algorithm.
Everything less than CONFIG_PREEMPT does not have an explicit
requirement for preemption so higher latencies are not unusual. *If*
this is a problem on <= PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY then a cond_resched() between
loops would be the usual thing to do. But only *if* it is a real problem
which I doubt. It is not a preemtible kernel after all…
> I guess the key question is whether long latency at module loading time matters.
> If that doesn't matter, we should just drop this.
Correct. And should this be problematic on PREEMPT_RT then I would
restrict CONFIG_RAID6_PQ_BENCHMARK to !PREEMPT_RT.
> Thanks,
> Song
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-17 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-17 2:16 [PATCH v3] lib/raid6: Reduce high latency by using migrate instead of preempt Yajun Deng
2021-12-17 13:42 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-12-17 17:25 ` Song Liu
2021-12-17 18:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2021-12-17 22:01 ` Daniel Vacek
2021-12-17 21:58 ` Daniel Vacek
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=YbzUVgPH9KDAMpA1@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
--cc=yajun.deng@linux.dev \
/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.