linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).