On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:30:17 +0530
Dipankar Sarma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > As a consequence of keeping track of RCU readers, the readers
> > > have a slight overhead (optimizations in the paper).
> > > This implementation co-exists with the "classic" RCU
> > > implementations and can be switched to at compiler.
> >
> > That's yet another question we need to ask people when their kernel dies,
> > and yet another deviation between the kernels which we all test, causing
> > more dilution of testing efforts. It would be much better if we could
> > remove classic RCU. You say this would incur extra cost, but the magnitude
> > of that cost is not clear. Please help us make that decision.
>
> See the Table 2, page 10 of the paper mentioned above.
argh.
Seems I have to wade through half the paper to understand Table 2.
> There is a
> ~100ns cost per read-side critical section involved in the preemptible
> version of RCU at the moment. Until, we are sure that we don't have
> an impact on common workloads, we need to keep the "classic"
> implementation around.
Ratios, please.. that 100ns appears to be a 100% increase. ie 100ns -> 200ns.
There are a couple of ways of working out how much that really matters: a)
run a workload or b) instrument a kernel, work out how many times/sec the
kernel runs rcu_read_lock(). I suspect b) would be more useful and
informative.
Either way, please always prepare such info up-front and summarise in the
changelog? It's kinda important...
-
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]
