From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:07:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53916FAA.3030008@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140605072637.GF3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 06/05/2014 12:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
>
Hmm, right. I thought hard to see if there is a clever way to maintain
the llist in the FIFO order itself, while still preserving the atomicity
guarantees, but I couldn't think of anything sane :-(
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-06 7:38 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
2014-06-06 7:37 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
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=53916FAA.3030008@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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