Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace periods

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:29:34AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 2/20/2015 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>>>>>Does it really make a machine boot much faster? Why are people using
> >>>>>>synchronous gp primitives if they care about speed? Should we not fix
> >>>>>>that instead?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The report I heard was that it provided 10-15% faster boot times.
> >>>>
> >>>>That's not insignificant; got more details? I think we should really
> >>>>look at why people are using the sync primitives.
> >>>
> >>>I must defer to the people who took the exact measurements.
> >>>
> >>>But yes, once I have that info, I should add it to the commit log.
> >>
> >>so the two most obvious cases are
> >>
> >>Registering sysrq keys ... even when the old key code had no handler
> >>(have a patch pending for this)
> >>
> >>registering idle handlers
> >>(this is more tricky, it's very obvious abuse but the fix is less clear)
> >>
> >>there's a few others as well that I'm chasing down...
> >>.. but the flip side, prior to running ring 3 code, why NOT do fast expedites?
> >
> >It would be good to have before-and-after measurements of actual
> >boot time.  Are these numbers available?
> 
> I'll make you pretty graphs when I get home from collab summit, which
> should be later today

Very good, looking forward to seeing them.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/