From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TREE_SRCU slows hotplug by factor ~16
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:00:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170426160029.GU3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1493221799.6176.5.camel@gmx.de>
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> > > > let me know now it goes.
> > >
> > > That took 'time stress-cpu-hotplug.sh' down to 48s, close to classic.
> >
> > Woo-hoo!!! ;-)
> >
> > And thank you for your testing efforts!
> >
> > Should I be comparing this with the 55s number from your initial email,
> > or to the 39s number?
>
> Should be the 39, but I'll get you a new tree vs classic number in this
> same tree after I finish bisecting TSC going wonky.
Sounds good!!!
In theory, given 4-millisecond SRCU grace periods and 225,000 of them
per run (estimated based on experience and on numbers you have already
provided me), the 0x3ff should be worth only about one second of delay
over the full test. On a really good day, I could probably invent some
statistics to estimate the slowdown from the 50-microsecond cutoff, but
today is not quite that good a day. And besides, the only difference
between theory and practice is that in theory they are both the same. ;-)
So I look forward to seeing your measurements! And best of everything
with the wonky TSC!!!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-26 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-24 2:48 TREE_SRCU slows hotplug by factor ~16 Mike Galbraith
2017-04-24 3:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-24 5:24 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-24 6:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-24 7:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-24 8:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-24 16:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-25 22:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-26 14:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-26 15:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-26 15:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-26 15:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-26 16:00 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2017-04-26 17:45 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-26 17:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-26 17:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-26 18:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-26 18:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-27 3:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-27 4:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-27 4:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-27 5:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-27 5:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-27 12:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20170426160029.GU3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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