From: catalin.marinas@foss.arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Implement vmalloc based thread_info allocator
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 01:36:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1CD6E4BA-95AF-420C-8270-6AAF783B6F60@foss.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5601369.jDWtB6nFJC@wuerfel>
On 25 May 2015, at 23:29, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Monday 25 May 2015 19:47:15 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On 25 May 2015, at 13:01, Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Could the stack size be reduced to 8KB perhaps?
>>>
>>> I guess probably not.
>>>
>>> A commit, 845ad05e, says that 8KB is not enough to cover SpecWeb benchmark.
>>
>> We could go back to 8KB stacks if we implement support for separate IRQ
>> stack on arm64. It's not too complicated, we would have to use SP0 for (kernel) threads
>> and SP1 for IRQ handlers.
>
> I think most architectures that see a lot of benchmarks have moved to
> irqstacks at some point, that definitely sounds like a useful idea,
> even if the implementation turns out to be a bit more tricky than
> what you describe.
Of course, it's more complicated than just setting up two stacks (but I'm away for a
week and writing from a phone). We would need to deal with the initial per-CPU setup,
rescheduling following an IRQ, CPU on following power management and maybe
other issues. However, the architecture helps us a bit by allowing both SP0 and SP1 to be
used at EL1.
> There are a lot of workloads that would benefit from having lower
> per-thread memory cost.
If we keep the 16KB stack, is there any advantage in a separate IRQ one (assuming
that we won't overflow 16KB)?
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-25 22:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-24 16:02 [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Implement vmalloc based thread_info allocator Jungseok Lee
2015-05-24 17:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-05-25 10:01 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-25 14:58 ` Minchan Kim
2015-05-26 12:10 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-27 4:24 ` Minchan Kim
2015-05-27 16:00 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-25 16:47 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-05-25 20:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-05-25 22:36 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2015-05-26 9:51 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-05-26 13:02 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-25 21:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-05-25 14:40 ` Minchan Kim
2015-05-26 11:29 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-27 4:10 ` Minchan Kim
2015-05-27 6:22 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-05-27 7:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-05-27 16:05 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-27 16:08 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-05-26 2:52 ` yalin wang
2015-05-26 12:21 ` Jungseok Lee
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=1CD6E4BA-95AF-420C-8270-6AAF783B6F60@foss.arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@foss.arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).