pj wrote:
> Time for me to learn more about rcu.
Well, that was easy.
Directly using RCU to guard that task->cpuset pointer instead of
cheating via the RCU hooks in the slab cache was just a few lines of
code.
But, boy oh boy, that synchronize_rcu() call sure takes it time.
My cpuset torture test was creating, destroying and abusing about 2600
cpusets/sec before this change, and now it does about 144 cpusets/sec.
That cost 95% of the performance. This only hits on the cost of
attaching a task to a different cpuset (by writing its <pid> to
some other cpuset 'tasks' file.)
Just commenting out the synchronize_cpu() restores the previous speed.
Nothing surprising here - this is just how rcu claims it behaves,
heavily favoring the read side performance. These delays are waiting
for the other cpus doing rcu_read_lock() to go through a quite period
(reschedule, idle or return to user code).
Patches coming soon, to remove the cpuset_cache slab cache, and to
use RCU directly instead.
Thanks, Eric.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]