From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, hch@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp, ipi: Speed up IPI handling by invoking the callbacks in reverse order
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 09:26:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140605072637.GF3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <538F7C7D.9040606@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1171 bytes --]
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:37:25AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 01:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:09:35AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> The current implementation of lockless list (llist) has a drawback: if we
> >> want to traverse the list in FIFO order (oldest to newest), we need to
> >> reverse the list first (and this can be expensive if the list is large,
> >> since this is an O(n) operation).
> >
> > Have you actually looked at the queue depth of this thing? Large queues
> > are a problem for interrupt latency.
> >
>
> Actually, I wrote this patch just by looking at the code and realizing
> that we don't need to reverse the list. In practice, I haven't actually
> seen any noticeable interrupt latencies or large queues so far. So I think
> this patch is just a very tiny optimization, that's all.
So conceptually it makes sense to service in FIFO because the first
entry is waiting longest, by servicing them in LIFO order you get far
more variance in latency.
And if the list is small, the cost isn't high.
Then again, we don't have any good numbers one way or the other.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-05 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-04 19:39 [PATCH] smp, ipi: Speed up IPI handling by invoking the callbacks in reverse order Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-04 19:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-04 20:07 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-06-05 7:26 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-06-06 7:37 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
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=20140605072637.GF3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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