Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Programmatic nestable expedited grace periods
From: Josh Triplett
Date: Sat Feb 21 2015 - 22:58:32 EST
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:51:34AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>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?
> To show the boot time, I'm using the timestamp of the "Write protecting" line,
> that's pretty much the last thing we print prior to ring 3 execution.
That's a little sad; we ought to be write-protecting kernel read-only
data as *early* as possible.
> A kernel with default RCU behavior (inside KVM, only virtual devices) looks like this:
> [ 0.038724] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 10240k
> a kernel with expedited RCU (using the command line option, so that I don't have
> to recompile between measurements and thus am completely oranges-to-oranges)
> [ 0.031768] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 10240k
> which, in percentage, is an 18% improvement.
Nice improvement, but that suggests that we're spending far too much
time waiting on RCU grace periods at boot time.
- Josh Triplett
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/